Duty demand overturned as manufacturing company liable, appellants not responsible.

The Tribunal set aside the duty demand against the appellants for storage tanks manufactured by another company, ruling that the duty was payable by the manufacturing company, not the appellants. As a result, the duty demand against the appellants was overturned, and the issue of whether the tanks were liable for central excise duty was not addressed further. The appeal of the appellants was allowed with any consequential relief permissible by law.

---

---

Issues:
1. Duty demand raised against the appellants for storage tanks manufactured by another company.
2. Whether the tanks, being permanently embedded to earth, are liable for central excise duty.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The appeal was filed against an order confirming duty demand with penalties on the appellants for 9 tanks for petroleum products and 2 water tanks. The appellants argued that they were not the manufacturers of these tanks, as they were fabricated by M/s. Dee Gee Saws and Metals Works. The Tribunal noted that although the tanks were fabricated on the land owned by the appellants and as per their directions, the actual manufacturing work was carried out by the other company. Therefore, the duty, if any, was deemed payable by M/s. Dee Gee Saw & Metal Works, not the appellants. Consequently, the impugned order confirming duty demand against the appellants was set aside.

Issue 2:
The Tribunal ruled that since the duty demand against the appellants was set aside on the grounds mentioned above, it was unnecessary to determine whether the tanks, being permanently embedded to earth and not marketable, qualified as 'goods' for central excise duty levy. This question, according to the Tribunal, could be raised by the manufacturer, M/s. Dee Gee Saw & Metal Works, if duty liability was sought to be enforced against them by the Revenue. Therefore, the issue of the dutiability of the tanks was not further addressed in the judgment.

In conclusion, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal of the appellants was allowed with any consequential relief permissible by law.

---