Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1990 (4) TMI 159

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... bsequently, in compliance with the procedural requirements, this supplementary appeal had been filed. On hearing the parties and considering that the main appeal was in time the delay in filing the supplementary appeal is condoned. 2. The appeal is directed against the order dated 21-9-1981. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants undertake among other things, manufacture of equipments for the dairy industry and also undertake erection of plants connected with dairy products. On such activity is supply, erection, testing and dismantling of Sangam Dairy Expansion, Vadlamudi for which purpose they manufacture certain items themselves and get certain other items as bought out items. They filed price list in Part-11 indicating the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ows that it was for work and labour and not for sale of goods. Also, he relied upon the case of Hyderabad Race Club v. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad -1986 (23) E.L.T. 274 that articles erected at site through civil work and permanently attached thereto, are not goods liable to excise duty under Section 3 of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and also cited the case of Gujarat Machinery Manufacturers Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Baroda -1983 (12) E.L.T. 825 to say that pilot plant is a chemical plant fixed to the ground and in the nature of immovable property which cannot, therefore, be considered as goods liable to excise duty. The learned counsel contended that the manner in which the appellants put together the various pa .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the plant, for erection, and commissioning, which are governed by separate terms of payment in the contract. The various equipments and components comprising the plant are either manufactured by the appellants themselves or are purchased from outside. These various equipments and components are, thereafter, taken to the site of the plant and are to be erected and commissioned by the appellants. In such a situation, we find, the appellant's operation amounts to manufacture and clearance of the various components and equipments forming the plant itself, as per the contract with the National Dairy Development Board, and would amount to manufacture of the plant which is cleared from the factory in the shape of various manufactured and bought-ou .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s", whenever weighbridges are made, those weighbridges are subjected to duty as such. The Tribunal held that by whatever process it became a complete weighbridge as long as a weighbridge has been made and completed, duty has to be paid. According to the Tribunal, though the parts are themselves liable to excise duty and so the complete machine is also a new excisable goods. In view of the well settled principles, the excisable goods are manufactured by the appellant. Section 2(f) of the Act provides an inclusive definition and states that the word "manufacture" includes any process incidental or ancillary to the completion of a manufactured product. So any process by which an object becomes new commercial goods, including any process incide .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nts installed at the site of the factory of the National Dairy Development Board and that if there is a demand for erection of such plants in other place, the appellants would undertake such installation also and from the above, it follows that the articles at the time of removal from the factory were movable property and hence the action of the Assistant Collector to bring the dairy plant manufactured by the'appellants under Item 68 of Central Excise Tariff is quite legal. We find that the ratio of the Supreme Court and Tribunal decisions cited supra, is applicable to the facts of the present case. In this view of the matter, the case law cited and relied upon by the appellants will not be of much avail and we, accordingly, find no reason .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates