2005 (5) TMI 126 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Classification of Multiflex Systems for duty imposition.
2. Liability of duty payment for assembling and erection of systems at site.
3. Applicability of Modvat credit for duty paid on components used in assembly.
4. Consideration of past decisions on addition, erection, and commissioning charges.
5. Interpretation of Section 37B order on excisability of Plant and Machinery assembled at site.
6. Justification of Commissioner's order and imposition of penalty.

Classification of Multiflex Systems:
The appellant was contracted to supply heavy duty storage racks, known as Multiflex, to a company. The Commissioner held that the appellant manufactured these systems at the site and demanded duty payment along with a penalty. The appellant argued that once assembled at the site, the systems become immovable and cannot be removed without damage. They also claimed that a sub-contractor undertook the assembly and any duty should be directed at them. The Tribunal referred to past decisions and concluded that no fresh excisable goods emerged at the site, and assembly charges should not be part of the assessable value of the systems.

Liability of Duty Payment for Assembly and Erection:
The appellant contended that the assembly and erection of Multiflex Systems at the site were done by a sub-contractor and any duty payable should be directed at them. They also mentioned the availability of Modvat credit for duty paid on components used in the assembly. The Tribunal, after considering relevant orders and decisions, found no merit in the Commissioner's order and upheld the appellant's argument, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal.

Past Decisions on Charges and Applicability of Section 37B:
The Commissioner's order was criticized for ignoring previous decisions related to addition, erection, and commissioning charges at the site. The Tribunal noted the importance of considering past judgments, including those of the Apex Court, in determining the classification and applicability of charges for Multiflex Systems. The Tribunal found no merits in the Commissioner's order and decided to set it aside, allowing the appeal.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal, after thorough consideration of the arguments presented by both sides and relevant legal provisions, set aside the Commissioner's order demanding duty payment for the assembly and erection of Multiflex Systems at the site. The Tribunal upheld the appellant's contention that no fresh excisable goods emerged at the site and that assembly charges should not be included in the assessable value of the systems. The appeal was allowed, and the order impugned was set aside.