Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2002 (1) TMI 115

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... cifications and bills of quantities prepared by the latter's architects. They executed the work and raised bill dated 1-10-87 for an amount of Rs. 38,48,330.13 and received the payment. After investigative steps including scrutiny of the appellants' records, recording of statements of representatives of the appellant-firm and M/s. Someshwar etc., the department issued show cause notice (SCN) dated 31-3-92 through the Additional Collector proposing to recover from the appellants an amount of Rs. 1,19,232/- as duty of excise on fabricated steel structures viz. purlins, trusses etc. (valued at Rs. 38,48,330/-) allegedly manufactured at the site of M/s. Someshwar and removed during 1987-88 without complying with CE requirements. The SCN alleged .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... evade payment of duty was not supported by any evidence and, therefore, the extended period of limitation was not invocable against the party. In this connection, the Counsel relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Cosmic Dye Chemical v. CCE [1995 (75) E.L.T. 721 (S.C.)]. He contended that the entire demand of duty was time-barred. He further pointed out that the adjudicating authority did not consider, and record any finding on, the question whether the demand of duty was barred by limitation. On the merits of the case. Ld. Advocate submitted that duty was demanded on the entire factory building (shed) constructed by the appellants as contractors for M/s. Someshwar. The building was an immovable property and hence not excisable. Even oth .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ontended that the fabrication of the said parts by cutting, drilling, welding, etc. yielded marketable goods different from the raw materials and hence the activity amounted to manufacture. In this connection, the DR quoted the meaning of 'fabrication' from McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms (5th Edition). The dictionary provided the meaning as "the manufacture of parts, usually structural or electromechanical parts". The DR also relied on the Tribunal's decision in Richardson and Cruddas Ltd. v. CCE [1988 (38) E.L.T. 176] in support of his contention that the fabrication activity undertaken by the appellants at site amounted to manufacture. Ld. DR further submitted that the suppression of such activity by the party be .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the DR seems to support this view. In that case, the Assistant Commissioner of Customs had petitioned the High Court against an order passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (CDRF). The challenge was mainly on the ground that the CDRF had no jurisdiction to pass the order against the petitioner. The High Court rejected the jurisdictional objection, after finding that the Customs Department had submitted to the jurisdiction of the CDRF and participated in its process of enquiry. 6.2. It appears from the SCN read with annexures thereto that the duty of Rs. 1,19,232/- was demanded only on the structural parts of the factory shed viz. trusses, purlins, etc. These structurals were admittedly fabricated from steel sheets, angles, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rketable. We find that, on the question of marketability, the Collector has not recorded any finding. In the absence of such finding his conclusion that the structurals were excisable cannot be upheld in view of the Supreme Court's ruling in CCE v. Man Structurals Ltd. [2001 (130) E.L.T. 401 (S.C.) = 2001 (44) RLT 113 (S.C.)]. 6.3. On the limitation issue, which was contentiously raised before him, ld. Collector has not recorded any finding as fairly admitted by ld. DR. We further observe that the appellants had, in their reply to the SCN, pleaded for treating the sale price of the goods as cum-duty price and for abatement of the duty element in computing the assessable value of the goods in terms of Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Act. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates