TMI Blog2001 (4) TMI 343X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... parts required to erect such furnaces are purchased by the appellants from the market. These are taken to the customers premises and erected/installed there. Show cause notice dated 1-2-1994 was issued alleging that such furnaces attracted duty under chapter heading 84.17, that the noticees had cleared such furnaces without payment of duty quantified at Rs. 41,36,306/-. Another show cause notice dated 4-2-1992 issued on the same lines demanded duty of Rs. 32,62,110/-. The total period covered under these two show cause notices was January 1987 to January 1993. The assessees were heard by the Commissioner. The claim advanced was that the furnaces were attached to earth and were not goods on which excise duty could be levied. A circular of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rystalliser was attached to the earth by a foundation, it was not capable of being sold. It was held that the creation at site did not become goods. The Court distinguished the judgments in the case of Narne Tulaman Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C.E. - 1988 (38) E.L.T. 566 and in the case of Hyderabad Race Club v. C.C.E. - 1986 (23) E.L.T. 274. In the case of Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd. v. C.C.E. - 1998 (97) E.L.T. 3 the Supreme Court held that a very huge machine fixed to the earth did not become immovable. It was observed that merely because something is affixed to the earth it did not become immovable property. A machine which is fixed to the earth for better functioning continues to be movable property and excisable goods. 4. The next land ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the furnace was created brick by brick on the steel structure which was permanently welded. On examination of the process we find it to be akin to the furnaces covered by the Tribunal judgment in the case of Silical Metallwgic Ltd. v. C.C.E. - 1999 (106) E.L.T. 439 (supra). Applying the ratio of the judgment, we hold that the furnaces manufactured by the appellants were not goods and therefore did not attract levy of duty. 7. On the aspect of limitation also we find that the Additional Collector as early as in July, 1985 had examined the same issue and had held that the furnace did not attract duty. In the face of this judgment, there is no substance in the claim of suppression etc. levelled in the show cause notices. 8. Thus, on mer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
