9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (6) TMI 291X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Respondent. [Order per : Justice R.K. Abichandani, President (for the Bench)]. This appeal is directed against the order dated 29-2-2001 of the Commissioner (Appeals) to the extent that it upholds the order-in-original. 2. The appellant has filed a note requesting for deciding the matter on merits by considering the grounds raised in the memorandum of appeal and the decisions refe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t has suppressed the material facts, justifying invocation of the extended period. It was held that the plant was erected on 1-8-1995, and therefore, the show cause notice issued on 10-7-2000 was within the stipulated period of five years under Section 11A of the Act. The Commissioner (Appeals), referring to the Trade Notice No. 23/1998 of the Rajkot Commissionerate noticed the broad criteria l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s paid on it. 5. According to the appellant, the charge of suppression could not be invoked as the goods under dispute were not manufactured but purchased. This submission is erroneous, because various parts of the treatment plant were purchased and assembled by the appellant and the marketable commodity, namely, water treatment plant was brought into existence by such manufacturing process by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y retaining its character as a water treatment plant. When a marketable commodity such as water treatment plant comes into existence by assembling various components that go into its making, excisable goods come into existence and the mere fact that such goods are subsequently fixed on a foundation that will not remove them from the category of excisable goods in which they fell before being so ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n view of the above settled legal position, reliance sought to be placed by the appellant on the decisions of the Tribunal in Cethar Vessels Ltd. v. CCE lndore reported in 2002 (143) E.L.T. 336 (Tribunal-Chennai), Blue Star Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur reported in 2002 (143) E.L.T. 391 (Tribunal-Delhi) and Collector of Central Excise, Madras v. Shri Ram Chemical Complex reported in 1996 (85) E.L.T. 309 (Tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
