9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (10) TMI 100X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... factory. The value of the machine was Rs. 3,23,934.12. The matter was adjudicated by the Addl. Collector of Central Excise, Pune, who vide his Order-in-Original dated 24-9-1985 held that the machinery manufactured by MSP with the components manufactured by them as well as those purchased from the market, was dutiable under the provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the `Act ). He observed that the fixation of the machinery to the floor with bolts and nuts was to prevent its movement. He confirmed the demand of Rs. 32,393.41 and imposed a redemption fine of Rs. 30,000/-. No penalty was imposed. 3. The matter was posted for hearing on 21-7-1995 when Shri K.K. Jha, SDR appeared for the respondent - Revenue. None was present for the appellant. Under their letter dated 11-7-1995, they had submitted that they did not wish to appear in person or through their authorised representative, and requested that the matter may be decided on merits after taking into account, their submissions made in the memo of their appeal. They also referred to a number of decisions in support of their contention that the machinery fixed to the ground was not `goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and nuts like any other machinery and can be moved from the place erected and installed on a fresh foundation if required. Assembly of various components, manufactured and bought out to bring the machinery into existence amounts to manufacture. After assembly a new product with distinct name, character and use comes into existence. In this connection, I place reliance on a judgment by the Gujarat High Court in the case of Anil Ice Factory and Others v. Union of India [1984 (15) E.L.T. 333 (Guj.)] where it was held by the Court that, if a company constructs a manufacturing unit for its own use by purchasing different duty paid parts or other material, it would amount to manufacture as envisaged by Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The ratio of this judgment is very much applicable in this case as a separate article, the special purpose machine is manufactured by assemblingg bought-out components and items manufactured by them. What is therefore manufactured in this case is a separate article called the special purpose machine ME 40-II which can be bought and sold separately. M/s. Mahindra Sintered Products Pvt. Ltd., themselves admit to have made a few machines ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Orissa v. M/s. NC Budha Raja Co. - 1993 AIR SCW 3317. In that case the Hon ble Supreme Court had distinguished the piles which the assessee laid by his particular method and which became a fixture in the earth to ultimately become an integral part of the dam, bridge or building as the case may be, from the pre-fabricated piles which are bored into the earth by the contractor or owner as the case may be (refer para 19 of the judgment). 7. The factual position with regard to the securing of the machine with bolts and nuts as recorded in the impugned order had not been disputed by MSP. In the statement of facts they had stated that the machine had been assembled by them and firmly fixed to the ground for installation. There is no reference that it was embedded to the earth. In para 17 of the grounds of appeal it has been stated as under : - (page 10 of the appeal). 17. The special purpose machine ME 40 II had been assembled in an installed condition duly fixed to the ground out of components manufactured by the appellants as well as those purchased from the market. The components manufactured by the appellants and used in the assembly in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated Sept. 30, 1969. In our view this Tariff Advice does not render any assistance to the petitioners. What has been provided therein is that when a refrigerating and air-conditioning plant is constructed which is not ordinarily sold as readily assembled unit countervailing duty would not be liable on it. We are not concerned with such a situation. Even if a company constructs a manufacturing unit for its own use by purchasing different duty-paid parts or other material, it would amount to manufacture. Construction of a plant can therefore be said to be something which has been manufactured. If therefore a refrigerating or air-conditioning plant is manufactured by a company for its own purpose it can be said that it has manufactured the plant. The reason for granting exemption is that the plant as a whole is not ordinarily sold as a readily assembled unit. This argument is of no avail to petitioners in the present matter since the petitioners have manufactured cooling coils" and condensers" which are readily saleable in the market. In fact, instead of manufacturing this item themselves, the petitioners could have purchased duty paid cooling coils and condensers already manufacture ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... different articles manufactured by the appellant such as the centrifugal pumps and accessories etc. were liable to duty under the respective items of the Central Excise Tariff taking into account the relevant exemption notifications. Issue involved in the case of Braithwaite and Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta-II - 1987 (29) E.L.T. 251 (Tribunal) was one of valuation - whether the charges on account of erection, installation and commissioning of electric overhead travelling cranes by manufacturer at customers site were or were not includible in the assessable value of the said cranes. They were considered in the circumstances of the case as post-removal costs not includible in assessable value. In the case of Dayaram Metal Works Pvt. Ltd., Gujarat v. Collector of Central Excise, Baroda - 1985 (20) E.L.T. 392 (Tribunal) the matter related to the erection and supervision charges. It was held by the Tribunal that in the computation of the value of clearances the erection and supervision charges were not includible. In the case of Maharashtra Agro Industries Development Corporation Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay - 1984 (18) E.L.T. 14 (Tribunal) the mat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
