2002 (9) TMI 791 - AT - Central Excise

Liability of Central Excise Duty on Goods Upheld; Steel Structures Remanded for Further Assessment

MUNAK ENGINEERS (P) LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., CHANDIGARH-I

MUNAK ENGINEERS (P) LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., CHANDIGARH-I - 2004 (178) E.L.T. 571 (Tri. - Del.) Issues:1. Whether the goods manufactured are excisable and liable to Central Excise dutyRs.2. Whether the goods in question are marketable and excisableRs.3. Whether steel structures like trusses and girders are marketable and excisableRs.Issue 1:The appellant contested the adjudication order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, arguing that the goods they manufactured for a Railway project were not excisable as they were fabricated in accordance with specifications provided by the Railway Department. They contended that the goods were permanently fixed with civil construction and thus should be considered immovable property. However, the Revenue maintained that the goods in question, such as RCC roof slabs and steel items like Doors, Windows, etc., were distinct products sold in the market and therefore liable for duty. The Tribunal found that the appellant's products were indeed available in the market, leading to the confirmation of the demand and penalty by the adjudicating authority.Issue 2:Regarding the marketability and excisability of the goods like Doors, Windows, Glazing Frames, Rolling Shutters, and Louvers of steel, the Tribunal noted that these items were manufactured by the appellants and sold in the market. The Tribunal observed that the goods were not solely made for the Railway project but were also supplied to other buyers, indicating their marketability. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the adjudicating authority on the marketability and excisability of these goods.Issue 3:In the case of steel structures like trusses and girders, the Tribunal found that there was no specific finding in the impugned order regarding their marketability. Citing a Supreme Court decision, the Tribunal emphasized that goods must be marketable to be considered excisable. As the adjudicating authority had not addressed the issue of marketability for these steel structures, the Tribunal set aside the order concerning trusses and girders and remanded the matter for re-consideration. The adjudicating authority was directed to determine the marketability and excisability of steel structures afresh, along with reassessing any associated penalties.In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal concerning the RCC roof slabs and steel items while remanding the issue of marketability and excisability of steel structures like trusses and girders back to the adjudicating authority for further examination.