9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (1) TMI 476X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs on 2-9-1994 who conducted various checks and verifications. Documents/ records pertaining to the purchase orders for the kilns/furnaces were also seized by the officers. After a lapse of about two and a half years from the date of visit, show cause notice dated 16-4-1997 was issued by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcutta-I alleging that the appellants had manufactured kilns/furnaces in its factory and removed the same in knocked down condition from their factory. Accordingly notice proposed to confirm demand of duty on the said kilns/furnaces by classifying the same under Heading 8514.00 and 8417.00. Longer period of limitation was invoked by alleging suppression of facts and wilful mis-statement with an intention to evade paymen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uch below the exemption of Rs. 30 lakhs as envisaged in the Notification No. 175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986 or 1/93-C.E., dated 28-2-1993, as the case may be. 4. In view of the foregoing Shri Banerjee strongly argues that the type of kilns/furnaces constructed at the customer's site has not been appreciated by the Commissioner. It would appear from the photocopies that the said kilns/furnaces cannot be manufactured and thereafter taken to the site in unassembled condition. They come into existence as a result of foundation of structures and masonry works, like building. These cannot be dismantled from one place and reassembled in another place. A permanent foundation is to be laid on the ground. Thereafter further erection work is to start. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing, it does not come into being, it can hardly be functional . That the impugned kilns/furnaces were/are not goods since immovable and as such not dutiable, in support the following cases are relied upon :- 1. ACE Building (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Chandigarh - 1999 (107) E.L.T. 308 2. Elecon Engg. Co. Ltd. v. CCE, Chandigarh - 1999 (107) E.L.T. 337 3. Shree Siddeshwar SSK Ltd. v. CCE - 1999 (109) E.L.T. 472 4. Orissa Construction Ltd. v. CCE, BBSR - 1997 (95) E.L.T. 398 5. Haryana State Electricity Board v. CCE, New Delhi - 1998 (29) RLT 235. 6. Josts Engg. Co. Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai - 1998 (99) E.L.T. 662. 5. Shri Banerjee further submits that the fabricated items, i.e. portions of the structure fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... judicating authority in Para 3.2 has observed that again, I find that the noticees' argument that the Revenue has sought to levy excise duty on immovable properties or turnkey project is mis-placed. The notice is quite explicit in this regard. Duty has been demanded on equipment manufactured and supplied in knocked down/semi assembled condition for which specific delivery notes were issued and invoices raised. (emphasis provided). A reading of the above paragraph would show that the nature of the basic dispute is not clear. If the appellants' contention that the duty has been demanded on the kilns/furnaces constructed by them at the site of their customers is accepted then we find that the issue is no more res integra and has been settl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
