Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2000 (1) TMI 777

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the proviso to Section 11A. There is a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- under Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules. The appellants are carrying on the business of job work contractors in respect of civil engineering works. The contract has been obtained from Southern Railways and under the terms of the contract the work is carried on, on principal to principal basis. However, under the supervision of the officials of Railway department, they were manufacturing for the railways in terms of the specification and contract the articles of cement namely RCC boxes and slabs. These were utilised for the purpose of broad gauge conversion work between Kovilpatti and Inam Maniyachi for railways; that all the RCC boxes were cast by them at their yards and transp .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ase of Bhor Industries as reported in 1989 (40) E.L.T. 280 (S.C.) regarding the marketability and the item being not goods. Further reliance has also been made on the case of Shree Agency as reported in 1977 (1) E.L.T. J168 and that of Sri Bajrang Gopilal v. M.N. Balkundari as reported in 1986 (25) E.L.T. 609 (S.C.). It was also pleaded that the item was exempted by Notification No. 13/88, dated 15-3-88 and also by another Notification No. 59/90-C.E., dated 20-3-90. The Commissioner after granting the appellants hearing overruled all their objections and held the items to be articles of cement and classifiable under Heading 6807. He has held that the items were sold to railways under the contract in terms of payment and the appellants had m .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the citations relied upon were also not accepted. 2. Arguing for the appellants the learned Consultant Sri Kuppusamy relied upon the judgment of the Tribunal rendered in the case of Delhi Tourism Transportation Development Corpn. v. CCE as reported in 1999 (114) E.L.T. 421 (T), wherein it was held that the said appellant was a contractor of railways and had been manufacturing cement articles classifiable under Sub-heading 6807.00 at site for the purpose of bridges only and the Tribunal, while holding that they were goods, held that the denial of Notification No. 59/90, dated 20-3-90 was not justified as the term site shall mean the land or other places on, under, in or through which the work is to be executed under the contract includ .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the item being goods has already been decided by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of A.P. State Electricity Board (supra) as noted by the Commissioner and even in terms of the citation given by the learned counsel in the case of Delhi Tourism Transporation Devpt. Corpn. (supra) fully cast items have been held to be classifiable under Heading 6807.00, which is the heading in the present case also. He submits that the Tribunal had decided the aspect pertaining to the expression site and the implication of its meaning for interpretation of Notification No. 59/90 but there was no finding with regard to the applicability of Notification to bridges . He submits that the Notification has been rightly interpreted and it applies to buildi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d that they have not given all the details pertaining to the clearances. In view of the further findings, which we are going to record, we are of the considered opinion that this aspect is required to be remanded along with the findings we are going to record with regard to the plea that the benefit of Notification is required to be extended to them. 8. We notice that the only ground taken by the Commissioner for denying the Notification No. 13/88, dated 15-3-88 that they have not observed the Central Excise formalities. It is noted that where the Notification exempts any goods from excisability or from duty, in such circumstances, the Commissioner cannot take the plea that Central Excise formalities have been required to be observed. The .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates