1999 (6) TMI 339 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Confirmation of duty on erection of weigh bridges in the factory premises.

Analysis:
The appeals involved the confirmation of duty on the erection of weigh bridges in the factory premises of the appellant. The appellants argued that the weigh bridge received by them was on a Proforma Invoice issued by a specific company, which had already paid the duty. They contended that what was erected in their factory was immovable property, not movable property, and therefore, no duty should be demanded on the value addition. However, the Addl. Collector disagreed and confirmed duty demands, stating that the weigh bridge only comes into existence after being erected, tested, and stamped at the appellant's place. The duty was imposed under sub-heading 8423.00 of the Central Excise Tariff (CET) without any penalty due to the appellant being a State Govt. unit. The demands were confirmed invoking a larger period under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act.

The appellant's counsel cited various judgments, including those of the Supreme Court, to support their argument that the weigh bridge should be considered immovable property. They argued that the Addl. Collector himself acknowledged that the weigh bridge came into existence at the factory site based on its erection. The counsel also referred to precedents where similar activities were considered as the creation of immovable property, not dutiable goods. They contended that the demands were time-barred as there was no intention to evade duty payment by the State Govt. unit.

Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal found that the Addl. Collector had relied on a Supreme Court judgment that did not directly address whether the erection of weigh bridges constituted immovable property. Given the factual disputes and the various legal precedents cited, the Tribunal concluded that a reevaluation was necessary. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration, emphasizing the need to verify the facts regarding the receipt of goods, the nature of the erected structure, and the applicability of the duty demands. The Tribunal directed the Addl. Collector to reassess the case in light of the arguments presented by the appellants, ensuring a fair hearing before making any decision.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeals by way of remand, setting aside the previous orders and instructing a fresh examination of the issues raised by the appellants regarding the nature of the weigh bridges and the duty demands. The decision highlighted the importance of verifying the facts and considering the legal arguments presented before reaching a final determination on the duty liability.