2003 (9) TMI 628 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the industrial freezer is subject to Central Excise Duty based on its movability/marketability.
2. Whether the industrial freezer constitutes excisable goods under the Central Excise Act, 1944.
3. Whether the structure of the industrial freezer is dutiable.

Issue 1:
The appeal concerns the applicability of Central Excise Duty on an industrial freezer based on its movability and marketability. The Revenue contended that as per Circular No. 153/2/98-CX, plant and machinery assembled and erected at the site attract Central Excise Duty if they meet specific criteria. They argued that the freezer's structure, being immovable and non-marketable, should not be excluded from excisability. The Respondent referred to judgments like Wintech Taparia Ltd. and Carrier Aircon Ltd., asserting that industrial freezers and air-conditioning plants, being non-marketable in their installed state, are not dutiable. The Tribunal upheld these arguments, citing the legal position established in previous judgments and rejecting the Revenue's appeal.

Issue 2:
The central question revolved around whether the industrial freezer constituted excisable goods under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Revenue argued that the freezer, despite being a structure used for freezing perishable goods, should be subject to excise duty. However, the Respondent relied on legal precedents such as Triveni Engineering & Industries Ltd. v. CCE to support their position that structures like the industrial freezer are not marketable commodities and thus not dutiable. The Tribunal concurred with this view, emphasizing that the freezer's immovability and nature as structural machinery for preserving goods exempt it from excise duty.

Issue 3:
Another crucial aspect of the case was whether the structure of the industrial freezer was dutiable. The Revenue contended that paying property tax for the structure, not the machinery, should not exclude it from excisability. However, the Respondent, supported by judgments like La Opala RG Ltd. v. CCE, argued that structures like refrigeration plants are not marketable commodities and hence not subject to duty. The Tribunal, aligning with past decisions and the legal position established by the Apex Court, ruled that the industrial freezer's structure, being non-marketable and immovable without substantial damage, does not fall under the purview of excisable goods. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal and upheld the lower authority's decision.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues addressed, the arguments presented by both parties, the legal precedents relied upon, and the final decision rendered by the Tribunal.