Manufacturer liable for excise duty on steel materials supplied for construction; exemption claim rejected. Failure to register justifies penalty.

The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, affirming the liability of the appellant, a manufacturer of iron and steel structural material, to pay central excise duty on goods supplied for construction. The appellant's claim of exemption under specific notifications was rejected as the goods did not meet the criteria for exemption. The Tribunal found the appellant's failure to register for Central Excise and pay duties justified the demand for duty, interest, and penalty under Section 11 AC. The appeal was dismissed, and the Commissioner's order, including the imposed penalty, was upheld without modification.

---

---

Issues:
- Liability to pay central excise duty on iron and steel structural material supplied for construction
- Confiscation of goods, demand of duty, interest, and penalty under Section 11 AC
- Applicability of exemption notifications No. 3/2005-CE and No. 32/2005-CE
- Jurisdiction and findings of the Commissioner upheld by the Tribunal

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a manufacturer of iron and steel structural material, faced a show cause notice demanding central excise duty on the goods supplied for constructing permanent shelters under a specific project. The goods were seized and provisionally released, with proposals for confiscation, interest, and penalty under Section 11 AC.

2. The Department found that the appellant, despite not having obtained Central Excise registration, was liable to pay central excise duty on the steel structures manufactured. The appellant's claim of exemption under Notification No. 3/2005-CE was disputed, leading to the issuance of a show cause notice for duty recovery, interest, and penalty.

3. Following due process, the Commissioner confiscated the seized goods, valued at a specific amount, and imposed a penalty under Section 11 AC. The appellant's appeal challenged this order, contending their entitlement to exemption under the said notifications.

4. The Tribunal noted that the goods manufactured by the appellant fell under Chapter Heading 7308 and were not eligible for the claimed exemptions. The exemption notifications required goods to be fabricated at the construction site, which was not the case here, as the goods were fabricated elsewhere.

5. Citing legal precedents, the Tribunal emphasized that excise duty is chargeable on goods with distinct characteristics, marketability, and use. The appellant's structural material met these criteria and was deemed excisable, thus not qualifying for the claimed exemptions.

6. Upholding the Commissioner's order, the Tribunal found no merit in the appellant's arguments regarding the exemptions. The appellant's failure to register for Central Excise and pay duties led to the seizure of goods, justifying the demand for duty, interest, and penalty under Section 11 AC.

7. The Tribunal affirmed the Commissioner's decision, stating that the redemption fine imposed was reasonable compared to the value of the goods. Consequently, the order was upheld, and the appeal was rejected, with no interference in the quantum of fine imposed.

8. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order, emphasizing the appellant's liability to pay duty, interest, and penalty as per the provisions. The decision of the Commissioner was deemed valid and upheld by the Tribunal.

---