Tribunal rules electronic signalling systems not excisable goods, appeal allowed

The Tribunal ruled that the electronic interlocking signalling systems (EIS) were not excisable goods as they were neither movable nor marketable. The process undertaken by the appellant did not constitute manufacture as defined under the Central Excise Act. The EIS, being tailor-made for specific railway stations and not generally available in the market, failed the marketability test. The demand for excise duty was time-barred, and penalties and interest were not imposable. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the order under challenge.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the electronic interlocking signalling systems (EIS) are excisable goods.
2. Whether the process undertaken by the appellant constitutes manufacture.
3. Whether the EIS is marketable.
4. Whether the demand for excise duty is barred by limitation.
5. Whether penalties and interest are imposable.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Excisability of EIS:
The appellant argued that the EIS is not excisable as it is neither movable nor marketable. According to Section 3 and Section 2(d) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, for goods to be excisable, they must be manufactured and marketable. The EIS emerges at the customer's site and becomes immovable after installation, failing the test of marketability. The Tribunal agreed, noting that the EIS is permanently affixed to the earth and interconnected by various wires and cables, thus not qualifying as movable goods.

2. Manufacture Process:
The appellant contended that no manufacturing activity is undertaken as the EIS comprises pre-purchased components like PCBs, connectors, racks, etc., which are merely assembled and installed at the site. The Tribunal observed that the components are duty-paid and the final stage involves assembling and installing these components at the railway site. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's activity does not constitute manufacture, as defined under Section 2(d) of the Central Excise Act, distinguishing it from mere assembly.

3. Marketability of EIS:
The Tribunal noted that the EIS is tailor-made for specific railway stations and is not generally available in the market, thus failing the marketability test. The goods must be capable of being sold in the market ordinarily and as such. The Tribunal cited the Hon'ble Apex Court's decision in Board of Trustees Vs. CCE, AP -2007 (216) ELT 513, which held that the burden of proof for marketability lies on the department. The Tribunal found no evidence that the EIS is bought and sold in the market, thus ruling out its excisability.

4. Limitation and Show Cause Notice:
The appellant argued that the demand is barred by limitation as the Show Cause Notice was issued beyond the normal period. The Tribunal observed that the appellant had paid sales tax/VAT on the components and service tax on the installation, believing the activity to be a service. There was no evidence of duty evasion or mala fide intent. Hence, the extended period for issuing the Show Cause Notice under Section 73(3) of the Finance Act, 1994, was not applicable, making the notice time-barred.

5. Penalties and Interest:
Given that the activity was not considered manufacture and the Show Cause Notice was time-barred, the Tribunal ruled that penalties and interest were not imposable. The appellant had discharged the service tax liability in time, negating any grounds for penalty or interest recovery.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the order under challenge, ruling that the EIS is neither excisable nor manufactured goods and is not marketable. The demand for excise duty was barred by limitation, and no penalties or interest were imposable. The appeal was allowed.

---