Excisability of precast bridge girders upheld; goods made in casting yards remained marketable and suppression justified extended limitation.

Prestressed concrete girders cast in separate yards and later transported for launching and fixation at a bridge site were treated as excisable goods classifiable under Heading 6807.90. Relying on the Larger Bench view in Asian Techs Ltd., the text states that marketability is not lost merely because the goods are ultimately incorporated into an immovable structure, and the exemption under Notification No. 59/90-C.E. was therefore unavailable. It further states that the extended limitation period was correctly invoked because the assessee had not disclosed the manufacturing activity and had withheld material facts from the department, with contractual acceptance of duty liability supporting suppression.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether prestressed concrete girders manufactured in casting yards and later transported and fixed at the bridge site were excisable goods classifiable under Heading 6807.90 and not entitled to exemption under Notification No. 59/90-C.E.; (ii) whether the extended period of limitation was correctly invoked on the ground of suppression of facts.

Issue (i): Whether prestressed concrete girders manufactured in casting yards and later transported and fixed at the bridge site were excisable goods classifiable under Heading 6807.90 and not entitled to exemption under Notification No. 59/90-C.E.

Analysis: The girders were admittedly cast in separate yards and thereafter moved to the site for launching and fixation on the bridge. The Larger Bench decision in Asian Techs Ltd. was relied upon for the proposition that PSC girders manufactured in a casting yard and removed for being launched on the sub-structure are excisable goods under Heading 68.07. The reasoning also followed the principle that marketability is not lost merely because the goods are ultimately fixed in an immovable structure. The exemption based on manufacture otherwise than in a factory under Notification No. 46/81-C.E. was treated as irrelevant to the post-1985 tariff regime, and the benefit of Notification No. 59/90-C.E. was therefore unavailable.

Conclusion: The goods were excisable and classifiable under Heading 6807.90, and the exemption claim failed, in favour of Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended period of limitation was correctly invoked on the ground of suppression of facts.

Analysis: The assessee had not disclosed the manufacture activity by declaration or otherwise. The reliance on Aruna Industries was rejected because that decision was confined to fabrication at site and did not govern the present case where the goods were manufactured elsewhere and then moved to the site. The record also showed contractual acceptance of duty liability, supporting the finding that material facts were withheld from the department. On that basis, the ingredients for invoking the extended limitation period were treated as satisfied.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was validly invoked, in favour of Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed in its entirety and the adjudication confirming duty, penalty, confiscation, and related reliefs was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Goods manufactured in a casting yard and transported for permanent incorporation into a structure remain excisable and marketable, and suppression of such manufacturing activity justifies invocation of the extended limitation period.

---