9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 560X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant places reliance on the Three Member Bench decision of the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ION EXCHANGE (INDIA) LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., COIMBATORE [ 2002 (7) TMI 801 - CESTAT CHENNAI] . The Tribunal has taken the view that the process of erection at site, does not bring into existence goods and hence not liable to duty. The process of assembly does not bring into existence any excisable goods - there is no justification to charge excise duty on the Water Treatment Plant - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ordered. After getting the necessary items procured from various sources, the appellant assembles and installs them as per design and drawing. The various sub-systems are interconnected and welded permanently. The entire Plant is installed on civil structure. After commissioning of the appellant, the same is handed over to the client. (iii) Keeping in view the process of setting up of RO Water Treatment Plant, the ld.Advocate submitted that the Water Treatment Plant after its erection, becomes immovable properly and the same cannot be easily removed without considerable damage. He further submitted that approximately 60% of the Plant components will be damaged if the Plant is dismantled from the place of installation. He also added that if dismantled, it may not be possible to install it in another location since the requirement will be different. (iv) Since the RO Water Treatment Plant becomes immovable property, the same cannot be described as "goods" and consequently, cannot be charged to Central Excise duty. (v) He submitted that the issue of chargeability of Central Excise duty on such RO Water Treatment Plant, stands settled in various decisions. In particular, he re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 2 (f) of the Act. The contention of the appellant is that the RO Water Treatment Plant is immovable properly, since the same is erected on the civil structure and cannot be dismantled without considerable damage. 8. As explained by the ld.Advocate, RO Water Treatment Plant is designed for getting quality water in a particular site. Various components/equipments required for such RO Water Treatment Plant, are procured from different sources. They are installed/erected at the site and erected on civil foundation. As per the write up of setting up of a Water Treatment Plant, such Water Purification Systems are brought into existence only at the site of the customer in a progressive manner on civil construction/platform. Before erection of various component parts, the civil structure in the form of foundation is constructed on which whole system is assembled and erected. System further requires inter-connection of various parts through piping. 9. While there is no dispute that Water Treatment Plant comes into existence only at the site of the customer, the Adjudicating Authority has taken the view that such Water Treatment Plant can be easily dismantled after its installatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dispute is whether the appellant is manufacturing industrial water treatment plants. The appellants, submission is that the industrial water treatment plants come into existence only upon erection at site. The appellants have developed designs for such plants of varied capacity. They also get the various parts and equipment required for the assembly of such water treatment plants manufactured to specifications by job works. Upon receipt of orders from industrial plants, they pack various parts required for the assembly and erection and send them to the buyers who gets the water treatment plant assembled and erected at site. At times, some parts are also directly despatched from the place of manufacture to the place of assembly without being received in the appellant's premises. 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. Rev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tence a new product, duty is attracted. According to them it is not relevant whether the process is a manufacturing process or not. 30. It is well settled that Excise being a duty on manufacture or production, the levy is dependent on the manufacture of new goods. In the present case, the evidence in the SCN only reveals that the appellant gets the parts manufactured, they pack and send those parts either fully from their factory or send some of the parts directly from the manufacturer's premises to the buyers' premises and other parts from the factory. However, other than designing and packing, appellant is not carrying out any manufacturing activity. These activities are not in the nature of manufacturing process, which brings into existence the industrial plant in the appellant's factory. 31. I am in agreement with the view of the ld. Member (J) that the appellant was not manufacturing Industrial water treatment plants and that the demand are not sustainable. I am also in agreement with the view of the ld. Member (J) that the demand is time-barred inasmuch as the facts about the manufacture of the industrial water treatment plants was fully in the knowledge of the C.E auth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
