9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (6) TMI 13X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erred. 3. The appellants had purchased water treatment plant under invoice dated 19.5.1995, which did not bear any details about the manufacturer, nor any duty payment particulars. According to the Revenue, the appellants had assembled the water treatment plant and, therefore, they were the actual manufacturers and the goods were liable to payment of Central Excise duty at 10% ad valorem. 4. The authorities below, on the basis of the material on record came to a finding that the appellant erected/assembled and commissioned the plant after purchasing various components and items from the local market and assembling them and thereafter fixed the same on a foundation. It was found that the purchase and erection of such plant was not reflec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arge 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 the appellant. 6. The contention that the extended period could not have been invoked is also erroneous, because the appellant had suppressed the fact of purchasing the components of water treatment plant and assembling them which constituted a manufacturing process. As noted above, the show cause notice was within the extended period of limitation. 7. It is clear from the facts on record that bef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not wobble, the goods will continue to be considered as movable excisable goods and will not be treated as immovable properties. In 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. Vs. CCE Indore reported in 2002 (50) RLT 57 (CEGAT-Che.)2002 (143) ELT 336 (Tribunal-Chennai), Blue Star Ltd. vs. CCE, Jaipur reported in 2002 (52) RLT 289 (CEGAT-Del.) =2002 (143) ELT 391 (Tribunal-Delhi) and Collector of Central Excise, Madras vs. Shri Ram Chemical Complex reported in 1995 (11) RLT 376 (CEGAT) =1996 (85) ELT 309 (Tribunal) and other citations referred to in the appeal memo, cannot assist the appellant. There is therefore, no substance in this appeal. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
