9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (3) TMI 255X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ause why duty amounting to Rs. 53,91,498/- should not be demanded from them, why 14 PSC girders cleared without payment of duty should not be confiscated, and why penalty should not be imposed on the person concerned. The Commissioner adjudicated the case demanding duty, confiscating the girders which were by then removed to be placed on the bridge and imposing penalties. Hence these appeals. 3.Heard both sides. 4.The ld. Advocate argued that the show cause notice is barred by limitation inasmuch as it was issued beyond the statutory period of six months as it existed at the relevant time as the Department had knowledge of the fact that the appellants were manufacturing PSC girders in 94 itself. The show cause notice was issued only in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gistration as they felt that they were not required to do so. Further correspondence was carried out to ascertain the correct details pertaining to the value of girders. The appellants refused to furnish information in time and therefore show cause notice could be issued only in 1996. Further refusal to take Central Excise registration amounts to contravening the provisions of Central Excise Rules and Act with an intent to evade payment of duty. Larger period therefore can be invoked in this case, he argued. 6.After hearing both sides on this aspect we are of the opinion that larger period of limitation is invocable in this case. The appellants contention that activity of casting PSC girders was going on in the full view of Central Excise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty of making PSC girders for the purpose of laying a bridge does not amount to manufacture. This contention cannot be accepted in view of the fact that separate goods known as 'girders' come into existence after cement concrete and steel is subjected to certain processes. The fact that the girders are subsequently fixed on the bridge do not make them immovable property either. It is common knowledge that a bridge consists of various parts which are fixed on it permanently. That does not mean that the various parts of the bridge become immovable property and for that reason are not goods. Girders are cast at site, transported to the bridge head and then are launched on the bridge. It only shows that PSC girders falling under Chapter 6807 CET ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h are manufactured at site and to be used in construction of bridges. The notification covers only those goods which can be used in construction of buildings. According to him only Notification No. 51/95-C.E., dated 16-3-95 exempts goods, falling under Chapter heading 6807, manufactured at site to be used in the construction work. The scope of this notification is wide enough to cover goods used in the bridges whereas the earlier one is not. He rejected the appellants contention that the later notification is only clarificatory and therefore has retrospective application. 10.We have perused both the notifications. The appellants contention that Notification No. 51/95 is clarificatory in nature cannot be accepted. The said notification enl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te are exempt from payment of duty under Notification No. 59/90. The Tribunal does not specifically answers the question whether the said notification applies to goods manufactured at site but are used in the construction of structures other than buildings. This specific issue is raised in the present appeal by the Commissioner. (c) B.E. Billimoria Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Pune - Order No. C-II/890-891/03-WZB, dated 25-4-2003 Held that PSC girders are not marketable and therefore are not excisable, a view contrary to the one expressed in Delhi Tourisum's case. It was specifically pleaded before the Bench that Notification No. 59/90 does not apply to PSC girders built at site and used in the construction of a bridge. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the product, labour charges and profit to arrive at the assessable value. This data was furnished to the Department by the appellants themselves. In the appeal memorandum at para 27 the appellants made reference to certain deductions that ought to have been given. They have, however not furnished any details. In fact the appellants were attempting to argue that in a work contract it is difficult to assign values to individual items of work. While it may be so, the appellants plea that because it is difficult to assign value to individual items no duty becomes chargeable on goods which are produced while executing a contract is not acceptable. We therefore uphold the valuation. 14.The Commissioner held the girders liable to confiscation a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
