9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (1) TMI 485X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Visakhapatnam Port Trust as detailed above, under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The amount of Rs. 35 lakhs already pre-deposited by them should be adjusted towards the above dues. They are also liable to pay interest at rate of 20 per annum on the amount of Rs. 1,00,00,200/-, being the duty evaded on the cranes manufactured after 28-9-96, for the period starting from the first day of the month succeeding the month in which the duty as aforesaid ought to have been paid till the date of payment of duty, as provided in Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944. A penalty of Rs. 1,00,00,200/- under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and another penalty of Rs. 75,000/- under Rule 173Q(1) of the Central Excise Rules, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Services in terms of contract. The ld. Sr. Counsel, therefore, submits that the second issue requiring the answer in this case is whether the duty is payable by the appellants or the job workers. The ld. Sr. Counsel submits that the appellants had furnished the detailed manufacturing process. A look on the manufacturing process will show that crane is built up step by step on the foundation on which it works. He submits that crane has got number of parts which are fitted and only then the crane comes into existence. He submitted that this Tribunal in the case of Triveni Engg. Works Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Allahabad [2000 (116) E.L.T. 252 (T)] had held that Turbine and Alternator which are not permanently embedded to earth b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refore, submits that crane is not an excisable commodity. 5. Ld. Sr. Counsel also submits that this decision of the Apex Court has been followed of the Delhi Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh v. Vardhman Spinning Mills reported in [2001 (132) E.L.T. 663 (Tri.-Del.)] holding mechanised material handling system permanently embedded to earth, cannot be brought and sold in market as such, hence not liable to any Central Excise duty. Ld. Counsel also submits that so also can be said about the crane inasmuch as the crane is not brought as such in the market for the purpose of purchase or sale. 6. Ld. Sr. Counsel also referred to the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Tata Robin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10. We have heard the submissions made by the ld. Sr. Counsel, Shri Debi Pal. We have also perused the case law cited and relied upon by the appellants. We have also perused the evidences on record indicating the process of manufacture of cranes. We note that for the purpose of levy of duty, there are a number of tests but in the instant case the twin test is, (a) whether the goods as such are brought to the market for the purpose of purchase and sale; (b) whether the goods are manufactured step by step and embedded to earth. Subjecting the goods in dispute in the instant case to the first test whether the crane as such is brought to the market for the purpose of sale. We note that the crane as such is not brought to the market for purchas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
