TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeal Dismissed: Key Considerations on Excise Duty Liability for Goods</h1> <h3>COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE Versus KRUPP INDUSTRIES (I) PVT. LTD.</h3> COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE Versus KRUPP INDUSTRIES (I) PVT. LTD. - 2003 (155) E.L.T. 489 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues:Department's appeal against Commissioner (Appeals) decision on Central Excise duty liability for goods removed from factory and erected at client's site.Analysis:The respondent was involved in turnkey projects like cement and sugar plants, facing allegations of incorrect duty liability on bought-out items and sub-contracted items, along with erection and commissioning charges. The department argued that assembly of duty paid components amounts to manufacture, citing Supreme Court judgments. The Assistant Commissioner noted that turnkey projects involve substantial civil work, leading to the creation of an integrated functional project embedded into the ground. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the absence of a specific definition of 'plant or project' in the Central Excise Tariff Act makes the inclusion of construction costs for assessment purposes not maintainable. Additionally, the decision in Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd. v. CCE was not available during adjudication, rendering the review proposal incorrect.In the appeal, the department contested the Commissioner (Appeals) finding based on the Sirpur Paper Mills case. The Tribunal emphasized following Supreme Court decisions as the law of the land. However, the Assistant Commissioner's finding that no excisable goods were created was not challenged with specific evidence. The Tribunal stressed the importance of proving how an item falls under excise duty ambit and how duty can be levied on marketable, movable property. As the Assistant Commissioner determined that only immovable property was created, which was not refuted by the department, the Tribunal found no grounds to interfere with the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, ultimately dismissing the department's appeal.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
