Excisability of pre-stressed concrete girders upheld, with exemption denied and extended limitation sustained for suppression.

Pre-stressed concrete girders used in bridge construction were treated as excisable goods because they satisfied the tests of manufacture and marketability, and the site-construction exemption was held inapplicable. The demand was treated as timely because suppression of manufacturing activity, absence of excise registration, non-maintenance of records, and clearances without duty or documentation justified the extended limitation period. Confiscation and penalty were upheld on the same footing as a similar Larger Bench approach, while interest was left open only for quantification by the lower authority.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the pre-stressed concrete girders were excisable goods and eligible for exemption under Notification No. 59/90-CE; (ii) whether the demand was barred by limitation and the extended period could be invoked; (iii) whether confiscation, penalty, and interest were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the pre-stressed concrete girders were excisable goods and eligible for exemption under Notification No. 59/90-CE.

Analysis: The girders were held to satisfy the tests of manufacture and marketability on the strength of the Larger Bench rulings on structurals and marketability. The exemption for goods manufactured at site for construction of buildings was found inapplicable to PSC girders.

Conclusion: The girders were held excisable and not entitled to exemption under Notification No. 59/90-CE.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand was barred by limitation and the extended period could be invoked.

Analysis: The record showed non-disclosure of manufacturing activity, absence of excise registration, non-maintenance of excise records, and clearance of the goods without duty or documentation. These facts were treated as suppression warranting invocation of the extended period.

Conclusion: The demand was held to be within limitation and not barred by time.

Issue (iii): Whether confiscation, penalty, and interest were sustainable.

Analysis: The order followed the Larger Bench approach upholding consequential confiscation and penalty in a similar matter. Interest was left to be quantified by the lower authority after hearing the appellants.

Conclusion: Confiscation and penalty were upheld, and interest was remitted only for quantification.

Final Conclusion: The substantive duty demand and consequential reliefs against the appellants were sustained, with only the quantification of interest left open before the lower authority.

Ratio Decidendi: PSC girders manufactured for bridge construction can be exigible to excise duty if they satisfy manufacture and marketability, and suppression of manufacturing activity and non-compliance with excise registration and record requirements justify invocation of the extended limitation period.

---