9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (4) TMI 335X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... abricated at site and erected to bring into existence Water Treatment Plant. One of the items so fabricated was clarifloculator bridges of M.S. steel. These clarifloculator bridges constituted a part of the Water Treatment Plant. Therefore, they were specially fabricated to match with design and dimension of clarifloculator which is a part of Water Supply Project. The fabrication of the clarifloculator bridge was undertaken on sub-contract basis by M/s. Hindustan Dorr-Oliver Limited. 2. The appellants have submitted that the clarifloculator bridges were fabricated from M.S. angles, M.S. channels and M.S. plates etc. The clarifloculator bridges were affixed partly on the underground cement concrete tanks. The function of these clariflocula ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Central Excise Tariff in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Bhor Industries Limited reported in 1989 (40) E.L.T. 280. They have relied on several judgments in support of their contention. They have submitted that the Supreme Court has held in M/s. Mittal Engineering Works (P) Limited v. Collector of Central Excise, Meerut [1996 (88) E.L.T. 622] that plants and insulations are not liable to Central Excise duty as parts cleared in knocked down condition has to be assembled, erected and attached by foundation to the earth at the site of the factory before use. On such assembly, erection and adjustment to earth, they ceased to be capable of being sold. They have also relied on the judgment of the Tribunal in M/s. Alfa Lava ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Plant the appellants have manufactured clarifloculator bridges and these clarifloculator bridges are first brought into existence and then these are fitted on the Filteration Plant with the help of derrick and chain pulley. Therefore, the requirement of manufacture and capacity to be brought to the market are both met, and therefore the clarifloculator bridges are goods which are liable to Central Excise duty. They have also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in M/s. Sirpur Paper Mills Limited v. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad reported in 1998 (97) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) wherein the Supreme Court held that mere affixing of the goods to the ground does not make them non-excisable as immovable property. They have also submitted that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ttal Engineering Works case the plant as such become erected and attached to earth and are not marketable and, therefore, nor goods within the meaning of Central Excise Act. It has further been held by the Tribunal in M/s. Aruna Industries Vishakhapatnam and Others v. C.C.E., Guntur and Others [l986 (25) E.L.T. 580 (Tribunal)] that fabrication and erection of structural steels could not amount to manufacture. The same view was taken by the Tribunal in M/s. Pratap Steel Rolling Mills v. C.C.E. reported in 1990 (48) E.L.T. 539 (Tribunal) and Standard Industrial Engineering Company reported in 1988 (38) E.L.T. 196 (Tribunal) with regard to fabrication and erection of steel sheds on within factory premises. We are of the opinion that clariflocu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
