9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (8) TMI 287X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder Item 68 of the Central Excises an Salt Act, 1944. Accordingly he issued a demand for payment of Central Excise duty amounting to about ₹ 25,000/- under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules and imposed personal penalty of ₹ 15,000/- on the Appellants under Rule 173Q(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. In their appeal to the Tribunal, the appellants have stated that the question involved is whether the Dal Mill which is attached to earth should be charged to duty under Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. The Advocate for the Appellants has stated that the Dal Mill in question cannot be called goods and accordingly cannot be subjected to Central Excise duty. The photographs of the Dal Mill which were produced by the Dep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. 2. The Advocate further submitted that the Dal Mill in question has been constructed without the aid of power and this has been clearly explained in the submissions that we made to the Additional Collector. The Advocate, however, did not submit any further evidence to this effect. The Advocate for the Appellants argued, without prejudice to the earlier argument, that the Dal Mill in question had not been removed from the factory nor was it consumed or utilised within the factory premises and accordingly could not be subjected to Central Excise duty. He referred in this connection to the case reported in E.L.T. 1983 Page 239 relating to J.K. Cotton Spinning Weaving Mills v. Union of India. Lastly, the Advocate argued that the Dal Mil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 30-4-1975, the parts used in manufacture of the plant were not sent to any job-worker in the latter s premises. At the most, the appellants could avail of the concession of set-off of duty under Notification No. 178/77, dated 18-6-1977 if they so desired. 4. The Bench has carefully considered the points made by both the parties. They have also had the benefit of perusing the photograph of the plant submitted by the Departmental Representative. The Bench is of the view that the plant in question was firmly attached to the earth and accordingly could not be described as `goods attracting levy of Central Excise duty. The plant in question was admittedly assembled at the site and accordingly had become part of the immovable property. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
