2015 (6) TMI 401 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal rules in favor of telecom company, installation not considered manufacturing under Central Excise Act

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, a Public Sector Undertaking providing telecommunication services, concluding that their assembly, ... Manufacture - digital local telephone exchange - Whether assembly, installation and commissioning of switching system along with power plant, inverter etc. would amount to manufacture - Held that:- Appellant have purchased the switching equipment and other integral essential parts of the system such as power plant required for producing 48V DC power on which the system is operated, inverters for power break down etc., and assembled these equipments by their own staff at site into a digital local telephone exchange. As stated by Sh. HC Singla, an officer of the appellant company, the telephone exchanges can be shifted from one place to another place, It is in view of the above facts that the Department has alleged that the assembly, installation and commissioning of the switching equipments, power supply, inverter etc., has resulted into emergence of a new goods called 'digital local telephone exchange'. - main component of a telephone exchange is switching system which is an electrical apparatus for line telephony. The power plant and inverter are only auxiliary equipments. Power plant supplies the 48V DC current for functioning the switching system and inverter is required for standby period in case of power break down. Thus, the goods which have been purchased - Switching systems have remained the switching systems only even after installation and in our view no new commodity with distinct commercial identity or character or use has emerged. We find that the same view has been taken by the Tribunal in the case of Fuzitsu Indi Telecom Ltd. vs CCE Chandigarh (2002 (8) TMI 206 - CEGAT, COURT NO. I, NEW DELHI) wherein the Tribunal has held that the when bought out items of telephone exchanges were brought to the site of telephone exchange and assembled, no telephone exchange was manufactured requiring payment of duty. Moreover, from the technical literature produced by the appellant, it is clear that the switching systems are commonly called telephone exchanges and hence, on installation of a switching system, no new goods with distinct commercial identity and distinct characteristics or uses have emerged. The impugned orders, therefore, are not sustainable. - The same are set aside - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues:1. Whether the assembly, installation, and commissioning of switching systems along with power plant and inverters by a Public Sector Undertaking constitute manufacturing, leading to duty liability under Central Excise Act, 1944.Analysis:The case involved a Public Sector Undertaking providing telecommunication services facing duty demands based on the Department's view that their activities amounted to manufacturing telephone exchanges classifiable under heading 8517. The appellant argued that no new commodity emerged post-installation, citing technical descriptions and tribunal judgments supporting their stance. The Department contended that the assembly of various parts constituted manufacturing, referencing tribunal decisions and circulars. The appellant highlighted the reversal of a previous tribunal judgment by the Calcutta High Court, challenging the persuasive value of the tribunal's decision.The Tribunal examined the nature of the appellant's activities, emphasizing the core component of switching systems as electrical apparatus for line telephony. It differentiated between the main switching systems and auxiliary equipment like power plants and inverters, concluding that no distinct new commodity emerged post-installation. The Tribunal referenced previous decisions where assembly and installation of telecom equipment did not amount to manufacturing, aligning with the appellant's arguments. Despite a conflicting tribunal judgment in the appellant's own case, the Tribunal noted its reversal by the High Court, diminishing its persuasive value. Technical literature and common industry terminology supported the Tribunal's decision to set aside duty demands, ruling in favor of the appellant and dismissing the Department's claims.In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled that the appellant's activities did not constitute manufacturing under the Central Excise Act, setting aside duty demands and penalties imposed by the Department. The decision was based on the lack of emergence of a new distinct commodity post-installation and aligning with previous tribunal decisions on similar cases. The judgment highlighted the importance of technical descriptions, industry practices, and legal precedents in determining manufacturing activities for duty liability under the Central Excise Act, 1944.