2001 (1) TMI 579 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Determination of whether assembly of Diesel Generating Sets (D.G. Sets) at the installation site amounts to "manufacture" for excise duty purposes.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Issue of Duties Confirmed Against Appellants:
The primary issue in all six appeals before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Kolkata was the confirmation of duties against the appellants by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhubaneswar-I. The duty amounts and penalties imposed were detailed for each appellant, primarily M/s. Western India Machinery Co. and M/s. Vineet Electrical Industries (P) Ltd.

2. Grounds for Duty Confirmation:
The duties were confirmed based on the assertion that the appellants were involved in manufacturing D.G. Sets. The appellants argued that the erection of D.G. Sets at customers' sites did not result in the creation of excisable goods. The main contention revolved around whether the assembly of Diesel Engines and alternators on a base frame at the installation site constituted "manufacture" for excise duty purposes.

3. Adjudication and Observations:
After hearing arguments from both sides, the Tribunal analyzed the core issue of whether the assembly process at the installation site amounted to "manufacture." The Commissioner rejected the appellants' plea that the D.G. Sets became immovable property after installation due to being fixed to concrete platforms and underground wiring. The Commissioner's decision was based on the components of the D.G. Sets being mounted on a base frame at the site, making the sets movable and capable of being bought and sold in the market.

4. Precedent and Legal Interpretation:
The Tribunal referenced a Supreme Court case involving Triveni Engineering & Industries Ltd., where it was held that certain installations on land could be considered immovable property and not excisable goods. The Supreme Court emphasized the test of mobility and marketability for goods to be classified as excisable. Applying this precedent, the Tribunal determined that the D.G. Sets in question, once assembled at the site, did not pass the test of mobility and marketability, thus were not subject to excise duty.

5. Judgment and Relief Granted:
Based on the analysis and application of legal principles, the Tribunal concluded that the activities undertaken by the appellants did not amount to the manufacture of D.G. Sets subject to excise duty. Therefore, the impugned order confirming duties was set aside, and all appeals were allowed in favor of the appellants. The Tribunal provided consequential relief to the appellants based on this decision.

6. Consideration of Alternate Plea:
Since the appeals were allowed on their merits, the Tribunal did not delve into the alternate plea of limitation raised by the appellants, as the primary issue regarding the manufacture of D.G. Sets had been resolved in their favor.

This detailed analysis of the legal judgment showcases the Tribunal's thorough examination of the issues involved, precedent application, and the ultimate decision rendered in favor of the appellants based on the interpretation of relevant legal principles and precedents.