2000 (4) TMI 722 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the lignite handling system erected by the appellants is excisable or not?

Analysis:
The only point of dispute in this appeal is whether the lignite handling system erected by the appellants is excisable. The impugned order confirmed duty and penalty, stating that the system is excisable under the Central Excise Tariff because it is not immovable property embedded in the earth. The appellants argued that the entire system is immovable property due to its nature and mode of erection, emphasizing that it cannot be dismantled effectively and moved elsewhere. They also claimed the demand is time-barred, citing early submissions to the department. The appellants contended that the demand should be reduced based on the correct effective rate of duty under law.

The appellants further argued that they had provided detailed information to the department in 1991, demonstrating their belief that the goods were non-excisable. They claimed Modvat credit on components, asserting that if correctly considered, the demand would be revenue-neutral. The appellants highlighted the lack of discussion in the impugned order regarding the time-bar issue and the reduction of Modvat credit. They referenced relevant case law and circulars to support their arguments.

The Department reiterated its stance that the system is not immovable property based on the statement of the Senior Manager and classification under Chapter 84.28 of the HSN. The Department referred to a specific case to support its position.

Upon review, the Tribunal found deficiencies in the impugned order. It noted a lack of detailed discussion on the nature of the foundation and the effective rate of duty. The Tribunal observed that the order did not address the submissions made by the appellants regarding limitation and Modvat credit adequately. The Tribunal agreed with the appellants that applying the correct rate of duty and allowing proper Modvat credit would make the demand revenue-neutral. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the matter for a fresh consideration, instructing the Commissioner to provide the appellants with an opportunity to present technical evidence before issuing a detailed order.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal by way of remand, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive review of the technical aspects and a detailed order covering all aspects of the dispute.