9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (6) TMI 13X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it upholds the order-in-original. 2. The appellant has filed a note requesting for deciding the matter on merits by considering the grounds raised in the memorandum of appeal and the decisions referred. 3. The appellants had purchased water treatment plant under invoice dated 19.5.1995, which did not bear any details about the manufacturer, nor any duty payment particulars. According to the Reve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he stipulated period of five years under Section 11A of the Act. The Commissioner (Appeals), referring to the Trade Notice No. 23/1998 of the Rajkot Commissionerate noticed the broad criteria laid down therein as per which plant and machinery, which was assembled and erected at site, was to attract Central Excise duty as leviable on the excisable goods. As per this criteria, the final product was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n it. 5. According to the appellant, the charge of suppression could not be invoked as the goods under dispute were not manufactured but purchased. This submission is erroneous, because various parts of the treatment plant were purchased and assembled by the appellant and the marketable commodity, namely, water treatment plant was brought into existence by such manufacturing process by the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts character as a water treatment plant. When a marketable commodity such as water treatment plant comes into existence by assembling various components that go into its making, "excisable goods" come into existence and the mere fact that such goods are subsequently fixed on a foundation that will not remove them from the category of excisable goods in which they fell before being so fixed. This i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... movable properties. In view of the above settled legal position, reliance sought to be placed by the appellant on the decisions of the Tribunal in CETHAR Vessels Ltd. Vs. CCE Indore reported in 2002 (50) RLT 57 (CEGAT-Che.)2002 (143) ELT 336 (Tribunal-Chennai), Blue Star Ltd. vs. CCE, Jaipur reported in 2002 (52) RLT 289 (CEGAT-Del.) =2002 (143) ELT 391 (Tribunal-Delhi) and Collector of Central Ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
