Tribunal Upholds Excise Duty on Fabricated Storage Tanks, Dismissing Appeals Post-Condonation

The Tribunal granted condonation of a ten-day delay in filing appeals, with both parties proceeding on merit post-condonation. The Tribunal upheld the liability for excise duty on fabricated storage tanks, considering them as manufacturing under the Central Excise Act. The argument that tanks embedded in the ground post-fabrication should be exempt from excise duty was rejected. The Tribunal ruled that the tanks' marketability was not affected by specific orders from IOCL/HPCL, upholding the liability for excise duty. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed, affirming the demand for excise duty on the storage tanks.

---

---

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing appeals
2. Liability of excise duty on fabricated storage tanks
3. Applicability of excise duty on tanks embedded in the ground
4. Marketability of the storage tanks

Condonation of Delay:
The appeals were filed with applications for condonation of a ten-day delay, which was granted by the Tribunal. Both parties consented to proceed with the appeals on merit after the delay was condoned.

Liability of Excise Duty on Fabricated Storage Tanks:
The appellant fabricated storage tanks using steel sheets supplied by IOCL and HPCL, as per specific tenders. The Department alleged that this activity amounted to manufacturing under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The adjudicating authority upheld the demand for excise duty, considering the fabrication process as manufacturing. The Tribunal agreed, stating that the tanks fell under the Central Excise Tariff and upheld the liability for excise duty.

Applicability of Excise Duty on Tanks Embedded in the Ground:
The appellant argued that since the storage tanks were installed underground after fabrication, they should not be subject to excise duty. However, the Tribunal held that the liability for excise duty is based on the manufacturing activity in the factory, not the tanks' use post-clearance. Therefore, the tanks being embedded in the ground did not exempt them from excise duty.

Marketability of the Storage Tanks:
The appellant contended that the tanks were not marketable as they were supplied to IOCL/HPCL based on specific orders. The Tribunal rejected this argument, emphasizing that the tanks were procured by the customers, even under job work contracts. As a result, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order, concluding that the fabricated storage tanks were liable for excise duty. The appeals were dismissed accordingly.

---