9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (2) TMI 295X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inery were obtained from M/s. Waagner Baro of Austria. The project work was entrusted to M/s. Hindustan Brown Bovery Ltd. (HBBL), who in turn sub-contracted the whole project to M/s. Larsen and Toubro for the elementary work of setting the foundation for erection, installation of equipment and machinery. Larsen and Toubro sub-contracted the erection and installation of equipment and machinery to M/s. Western India Enterprises Ltd. (WIEL) by contract dated 29-1-1988. As per the terms and conditions of the contract, the whole of the material, equipment and machinery for the erection and installation was to be supplied by HBBL to WIEL. A question arose as to whether the jobs undertaken by WIEL would amount to manufacturing activities. On the b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and, therefore, they were not required to comply with any of the formalities under the Central Excise law; that there was no manufacturing activities at site and the processes carried out at site did not result into or amount to manufacture. 5. After hearing the representatives of WIEL and HBBL the Collector by the impugned order held that fabrication and erection of certain structures and items at site as done in the case before him did not amount to manufacture of any excisable goods and, therefore, the show cause notice had no merit. Accordingly, the proceedings were directed to be dropped. 6. In the present appeal before us, the Department has, on the basis of the Tribunal decision in Richardson and Crudas Ltd. v. CCE reported in 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een from the show cause notice that the Department had built its case on the statements given by the Representatives of HBBL and WIEL who were involved in the construction project of erecting and installing the machinery and plant as well on the sketches and drawings shown to the excise authorities. In his statement dated 17-7-1990 the Site Manager of HBBL had stated that all the items listed in annexure to the contract were imported and no extra supplies were made to WIEL. He had also stated that the items were imported by NTPC in knocked down condition and these were assembled and erected at site in connection with items like (i) Flare stack and silencer, (ii) Boiler structure, (iii) Platforms and galleries, (iv) Pipe racks, (v) Boiler ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Law. Applying the said principles, the Tribunal had held in the Richardson and Cruddas case that the process of manufacture had taken place in respect of the goods under examination. The facts in that case was the assessee company was fabricating columns, purlins brasing, rafters and other items required for erection. The fabrication was carried out from duty paid iron and steel products such as plates, angles etc. by subjecting them to the process of cutting, welding, vetting etc. In the facts of the present case before us it is seen from the show cause notice that flare stack and silencer was erected at site after welding of parts which were received in fabricated condition. Another item, namely, boiler structure was erected after cutting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
