TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 560X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... NGE (INDIA) LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., COIMBATORE [ 2002 (7) TMI 801 - CESTAT CHENNAI] . The Tribunal has taken the view that the process of erection at site, does not bring into existence goods and hence not liable to duty. The process of assembly does not bring into existence any excisable goods - there is no justification to charge excise duty on the Water Treatment Plant - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Ex. Appeal No.442/12 - FO/75271/2019 - Dated:- 27-2-2019 - SHRI P.K. CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) And SHRI V. PADMANABHAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri Muthu Venkataraman Shri M.N.Bharathi, both Advocates for the Appellants(s) Shri S. S. Chattopadhyay, Supdt. (AR) for the Revenue ORDER Per Bench : The present appeal is directed against the Order-in-Original No. No.33/Commissioner/CE/Haldia/Adjn./2012 dated 30.03.2012. 2. The appellants, who have their office at Salem in Tamil Nadu, received an order from Executive Engineer, Zilla Parishad, Andaman Nicobar Islands, for setting up a Water Treatment Plant for providing potable drinking ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed and various requirements of components, such as, filter, membrane and other equipments/instruments are ordered. After getting the necessary items procured from various sources, the appellant assembles and installs them as per design and drawing. The various sub-systems are interconnected and welded permanently. The entire Plant is installed on civil structure. After commissioning of the appellant, the same is handed over to the client. (iii) Keeping in view the process of setting up of RO Water Treatment Plant, the ld.Advocate submitted that the Water Treatment Plant after its erection, becomes immovable properly and the same cannot be easily removed without considerable damage. He further submitted that approximately 60% of the Plant components will be damaged if the Plant is dismantled from the place of installation. He also added that if dismantled, it may not be possible to install it in another location since the requirement will be different. (iv) Since the RO Water Treatment Plant becomes immovable property, the same cannot be described as goods and consequently, cannot be charged to Central Excise duty. (v) He submitted t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y for public utility to the area concerned. It is required to examine whether the activity of assembly and erection of the bought out items to form RO Water Treatment Plant, can be construed as manufacture under Section 2 (f) of the Act. The contention of the appellant is that the RO Water Treatment Plant is immovable properly, since the same is erected on the civil structure and cannot be dismantled without considerable damage. 8. As explained by the ld.Advocate, RO Water Treatment Plant is designed for getting quality water in a particular site. Various components/equipments required for such RO Water Treatment Plant, are procured from different sources. They are installed/erected at the site and erected on civil foundation. As per the write up of setting up of a Water Treatment Plant, such Water Purification Systems are brought into existence only at the site of the customer in a progressive manner on civil construction/platform. Before erection of various component parts, the civil structure in the form of foundation is constructed on which whole system is assembled and erected. System further requires inter-connection of various parts through piping. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssees contention and set aside the demands and penalty against the appellants and other parties. The findings recorded by the Third Member in paragraphs 25 to 32 is reproduced herein below : 25. I have perused the records and orders proposed by my ld. Brothers. I have also heard both sides. 26. The dispute is whether the appellant is manufacturing industrial water treatment plants. The appellants, submission is that the industrial water treatment plants come into existence only upon erection at site. The appellants have developed designs for such plants of varied capacity. They also get the various parts and equipment required for the assembly of such water treatment plants manufactured to specifications by job works. Upon receipt of orders from industrial plants, they pack various parts required for the assembly and erection and send them to the buyers who gets the water treatment plant assembled and erected at site. At times, some parts are also directly despatched from the place of manufacture to the place of assembly without being received in the appellant's premises. The appellants submission is that mere packing of the parts is not a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Collector's order at all. We are of the view that the order of the Tribunal is erroneous and must be set aside . [paras 2 and 3] 29. The appellant s contention is that unless some manufacturing process brings into existence a new product, the dutiable event does not takes place. As against this, the Revenue has contended that if some process is carried out which brings into existence a new product, duty is attracted. According to them it is not relevant whether the process is a manufacturing process or not. 30. It is well settled that Excise being a duty on manufacture or production, the levy is dependent on the manufacture of new goods. In the present case, the evidence in the SCN only reveals that the appellant gets the parts manufactured, they pack and send those parts either fully from their factory or send some of the parts directly from the manufacturer s premises to the buyers premises and other parts from the factory. However, other than designing and packing, appellant is not carrying out any manufacturing activity. These activities are not in the nature of manufacturing process, which brings into existence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
