9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 520X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hermal Power Corporation (NTPC) Ltd.. The dispute in the present appeal relates to liability of the appellant to pay Central Excise duty on the structures which are emerging during the course of erection of such chimney. The Revenue entertained a view that the appellants were engaged in the manufacture of other tubes and pipes fall under Central Excise Tariff Heading 7305.90 and have to discharge duty on the same. The appellant contested the demand. 2. The case was adjudicated by the Original Authority, who confirmed Central Excise duty demand of Rs. 55,71,305/-. He also imposed penalty of equivalent amount on the appellant in terms of Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. A further penalty of Rs. 30.00 Lakhs has been imposed under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er correspondences were made between the Revenue and the appellant and ultimately a demand was raised on 29.08.2005, which is well beyond the normal period. 4. The ld.A.R. for the Revenue supported the findings of the original authority and stated that the product correctly falls under the classification of 730590 as other pipes and tubes and the contract with M/s.NTPC will show that this product is marketable, at least to M/s.NTPC. He relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. C.C.E. [2005 (190) E.L.T. 301 (Tri.-LB)] to state that even a single customer for the product will make the product marketable and accordingly liable to duty. Regarding limitation, he submitted that the appellants did not furni ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esigns as approved by M/s.NTPC. The design and drawing are all made specifically for such Chimney. There is no sale of such parts designed for fabrication. The marketability has to be established at least by existence of one customer or possibility of such market for the product. The execution of work order which is for the completely erect custom made Chimney by itself does not satisfy the question of marketability. Admittedly, the dimensions and designs for the said Chimney flue is specifically to the particular work and the impugned order did not justify the grounds of marketability before arriving at a finding. We have perused, more specifically, para 4.10 and 4..11 of the impugned order, and find that the question of marketability has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
