9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (7) TMI 628X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isposal as per law. 2. The issue pertaining to the manufacture and excisability of water treatment plant at site was the subject-matter of several show cause notices against M/s. Ion Exchange (India) Ltd. with regard to the alleged manufacture and clearance without payment of duty. The show cause notices were issued by several Commissionerates in India and therefore the CBE & C issued 3 orders No. 2/2000, dated 12-1-2001, No. 12/2000, dated 17-8-2000 and No. 15/2000, dated 24-10-2001 directing the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai III Commissionerate to investigate and adjudicate the entire 44 cases referred to him. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai III Commissionerate has disposed of by separate Orders-in-Original No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts and confirmed the duty amount and had held that M/s. Ion Exchange (India) Ltd. brought into existence water treatment plant and hence were liable for penalty. The said issue came up before this Bench for consideration and this Bench by Final Order No. 790/2002, dated 16-7-2002 upheld the appellant's contention that such assemble did not result in the process of manufacture and water treatment plant are not goods at site but are immovable property. This view was expressed by majority of the members of the Tribunal in terms of the respective orders. Thus the demands confirmed against the appellant was set aside and appeal had been allowed by Final Order No. 790/2002, dated 16-7-2002. 3. Ld. Counsel Shri N. Venkataraman accompanied by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clearly held that the water treatment plant fabricated and assembled at the factory site of the customer by assessee from the vessels and pipes manufactured by it cannot be said to be cleared in knocked down condition and further held that they are not excisable as it cannot be taken to the market and sold. The Revenue appeal was rejected applying the ratio of the Apex Court judgment rendered in the case of Triveni Engineering & Indus. Ltd. v. Commissioner as reported in 2000 (120) E.L.T. 273 (S.C.). Further reference with reference to Delhi Bench in the same party as reported in 2000 (115) E.L.T. 135 wherein the Tribunal has examined large number of other judgments also to upheld the assessee's contention. 4. Ld. DR Shri A. Jayachan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The appellants' submission is that mere packing of the parts is not a process of manufacture attracting the levy of CE duty. 27. As against this, the Revenue's contention is that the appellant has designed the plant, has got all the parts standardised and produced and is selling the goods against specific orders for plants. Further, the unit is easily assembled and does not require any foundation. Revenue therefore, holds that the product which is packed and sold by the appellant is a water treatment plant and the appellant can rightly be held as a manufacturer of such plants. 28. The appellant placed much reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Hawkins Cook ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... held that a manufacturing process had been undertaken by the appellant and unless there is a finding of manufacture, excise duty is not attracted. Unfortunately, the Tribunal has not examined the correctness of the Collector's order at all. We are of the view that the order of the Tribunal is erroneous and must be set aside". [paras 2 and 3] 29. The appellant's contention is that unless some manufacturing process brings into existence a new product, the dutiable event does not takes place. As against this, the Revenue has contended that if some process is carried out which brings into existence a new product, duty is attracted. According to them it is not relevant whether the process is a manufacturing proces ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hen the facts of the case were known to both sides, there is no substance in the allegation that relevant facts were wilfully suppressed by the appellant with the intention to evade payment of duty. 32. In view of what has been stated above, I am of the view that the appeal is required to be allowed." 6. In view of this Bench having decided in the appellant's own case by majority order holding that the process of assembly at site does not bring into existence excisable goods and are not liable to duty, therefore, the impugned orders in orders-in-original in these 27 appeals are required to be set aside by allowing the appeals. The COD application in Appeal No. E/177/02 is taken up and allowed in view of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
