TMI Blog2006 (2) TMI 312X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the bridges on the railway. As regards the merits of the case, the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Asian Techs Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-II - 2005 (189) E.L.T. 420 (Tri. - LB) has held that such PSC girders are excisable and it has further held that exemption under Notification No. 59/90-CE applicable to goods manufactured at site for construction of buildings does not apply to PSC girders. The learned S.D.R. appearing for Revenue also brings to our notice the subsequent decision of another Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Mahindra Mahindra Ltd. v. C.C.E., Aurangabad, Chandigarh, Kanpur Chennai - 2005 (190) E.L.T. 301 (Tri. - LB) which has extensively gone into the issue of manufacture, marketab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ary registration nor did they comply with the excise rules pertaining to manufacture, removal and payment of duty. He further states that under the contract with KRCL, the appellants were obliged to discharge excise duty liability. 2. We find that the Show Cause Notice dtd. 27-1-1994 was issued to the appellants by the Superintendent of Central Excise, Ratnagiri Range demanding duty of Rs. 32,35,575/- in respect of 75 PSC girders valued at Rs. 1,61,77,875/- However, this Show Cause Notice has been withdrawn by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Ratnagiri Division on 11-3-1994 (and not on 11-3-1996 as contended by the learned Advocate) on the ground that the Show Cause Notice dtd. 27-1-1994 was issued without the approval of the pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eclaration or otherwise and therefore they have suppressed the information from the Department. It is further seen that there is nothing on record to show that the noticees have approached the jurisdictional Excise officers to enquire about the procedure to be followed by them in regard to the activities carried out by them particularly when excise liability was expressly accepted by them in the contract. In the absence of any such evidence, I hold that the notices have suppressed the facts from the Department. 4. We also find from the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Dharampal Satyapal (supra) that where the assessee is in the business of manufacture and did not disclose the existence of manufacturing units, did not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty of the PSC girders and applicability of exemption Notification No. 59/90 but has also decided the case upholding confirmation of demand, imposition of penalty and confiscation of the goods. We find that the impugned order in the present case and the impugned order in the case of M/s. Asian Techs Ltd. are similar apart from having been passed by the same adjudicating Commissioner on similar grounds. Hence, following-the decision of the Larger Bench in the case of Asian Techs Ltd. (cited supra) we confirm the duty demand, confiscation and penalty in this case also. As regards interest, the same has not been quantified. Hence, we direct the lower authority to quantify the same according to law after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
