Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be discontinued on 31-07-2025
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please
let us know via our feedback form
so we can address them promptly.
Home
2002 (11) TMI 388 - AT - Central Excise
Issues:
Duty demand on "Cantilever Assembly," penalty imposition, interest demand. Analysis: 1. The judgment deals with an appeal against an order confirming a duty demand of over Rs. 54 lakhs on the purported manufacture of "Cantilever Assembly" by M/s. KEC International Ltd., along with an equal penalty and interest demand. 2. The appellants argued that the assembly was fabricated during a Railway Electrification project and was part of a work contract, not a product manufactured in a factory for sale in the market. The assembly, consisting of iron tubes fixed on a post at the site, becomes part of an immovable structure supporting electric wires and cables. 3. The appellants contended that the fabrication of the assembly was a construction activity, not manufacturing, as structures are immovable properties lacking mobility, unlike goods. Citing precedent, they argued that items like columns and purlins fabricated at the site are not considered goods. The assembly, when fixed on a pole, becomes part of a permanent structure. 4. The Tribunal agreed with the appellants, stating that the assembly, upon fixing on a pole, becomes part of an immovable property and cannot be classified as goods due to its lack of mobility. Referring to the Supreme Court decision, the Tribunal held that the assembly was akin to beams and girders forming part of a construction design, not goods for excise duty purposes. 5. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the appellants were granted consequential relief, as the Tribunal found the assembly not liable for duty demand, penalty, or interest. This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive understanding of the issues involved and the Tribunal's decision regarding the classification of the "Cantilever Assembly" in question.
|