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>Steel structurals fixed to earth not subject to excise duty; immovable property status upheld.</h1> <h3>Commissioner of Central Excise, Puducherry Versus M/s. M.R. Krishnamoorthy Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd.</h3> Commissioner of Central Excise, Puducherry Versus M/s. M.R. Krishnamoorthy Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. - TMI Issues:1. Whether the fabrication and erection of steel structural by a company at the site of another company amounts to manufacture.2. Whether structurals fabricated at the site are liable to duty.Analysis:1. The appeal involved a dispute regarding whether the fabrication and erection of steel structural by one company at the site of another company constituted manufacturing. The Commissioner (Appeals) noted that similar appeals against other co-noticees had been dismissed previously. The impugned order dismissed the Revenue's appeal against the respondent based on the conclusions made in those previous appeals.2. The respondent was only a co-noticee at whose site the fabrication took place. The show cause notice proposed penalties only against the respondent, while duty demands were raised against the companies conducting the fabrication work. The issue of whether the fabricated structurals were subject to duty had been contentious and had been addressed by the Larger Bench in a previous case involving Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. The Larger Bench had clarified that immovable iron and steel structures, once fixed to the earth, were not considered excisable goods.3. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order determined that the fabricated structurals, once attached to the earth and forming part of a building, ceased to be goods and were not capable of being shifted or bought and sold. The adjudicating authority had also concluded that the steel structurals were permanently attached to the earth, making them non-excisable. The Larger Bench's decision supported this view that fixed structures were not excisable.4. Based on the above analysis and the precedent set by the Larger Bench, the Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal lacked merit and was dismissed. The judgment clarified that once steel structurals were fixed to the earth and became immovable property, they were not subject to excise duty.This detailed analysis of the judgment addresses the issues involved comprehensively, highlighting the key legal principles and conclusions drawn by the Tribunal in this case.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
