TMI Blog2002 (3) TMI 127X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... they manufacture various equipments that they entered into an agreement with Bokaro Steel Plant for undertaking design, engineering, documentation, manufacturing and supplying of a plant and equipment, storage and handling at site, erection, testing, Commissioning, establishment of performance guarantee tests and final handing over of one number VAD installation in Steel Melting Shop II of the BSP, including civil and structural works. He, further, mentioned that the VAD system is a complete plant complex housed in several buildings spread over an area of merely 12,000 Sq meters; that it comprises 21 distinct and separate units each comprising several machines and equipments; that the VAD plant receives liquid steel from upstream converter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... between the Appellants and BSP for manufacture and supply. 3. The learned Chartered Accountant, further submitted that no evidence has been cited in the impugned order to prove marketability of the VAD plant; that the marketability of the plant cannot be presumed from the agreement entered into between ESP and the Appellants as the same is for designing, erecting and commissioning of a complete plant on turnkey basis and not for manufacture and supply of VAD system which has been referred to as a product; that further there can be an agreement for a house and building; that the VAD plant is an immovable property which does not fall within the definition of "goods"; that the finding in the impugned order that the VAD system is not immovab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een clarified that Turnkey Projects "involving supply of large number of components, machinery, equipments, pipes and tubes etc. for their assembly/ installation/erection/integration/inter-connectivity on foundations/civil structure etc. at site, will not be considered as excisable goods". Finally, he submitted that the demand of duty is time-barred as there was no deliberate suppression of facts or any intention to evade payment of duty on their part; that they had a bona fide belief that the VAD plant was not liable to duty being immovable; that neither the show cause notice nor the impugned order spell out the specific instance of suppression of facts. 4. Countering the arguments, Mrs. Krishna A. Mishra, learned SDR, reiterated the fin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the machines, equipments and appliance brought by the Appellants to the site were assembled and erected on civil RCC foundations and the height of the entire plant was 23 meters. If plant is dismantled, it would result in recovery of parts and components only. The CBEC has also now clarified in Section 37B Order dated 15-1-2002 that each case has to be decided "keeping in view the facts and circumstances particularly whether it is particularly possible (considering the size and nature of the goods, the existence of appropriate transport by air, water, land for such size, capability of goods to move on self-propulsion-ships, etc.) to remove and sell the goods as they are, without dismantling into their components". Accordingly, we hold that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
