Exemption notification and excisability of embedded structures: duty relief allowed for some goods, while limitation and water tank liability survived.

Extended limitation under Section 11A was upheld for the period prior to 10-7-1987 because earlier departmental inspection did not, by itself, prove full disclosure of material facts. Notification No. 182/87-C.E. was applied in the assessee's favour for goods manufactured from 10-7-1987 to 26-7-1988, so the duty demand for that period failed. Trusses, columns and wireless/lighting towers were held not dutiable because they did not come into existence as excisable goods until embedded in earth. The plea that the water tank was not dutiable was rejected as a late factual claim unsupported by evidence, so duty on that item remained. Penalty was left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the extended period of limitation under Section 11A could be invoked on the facts alleged, (ii) whether the goods manufactured during the period 10-7-1987 to 26-7-1988 were entitled to exemption under Notification No. 182/87-C.E., (iii) whether trusses, columns and wireless/lighting towers were dutiable, and whether water tank was dutiable.

Issue (i): Whether the extended period of limitation under Section 11A could be invoked on the facts alleged

Analysis: The demand was founded on alleged suppression of production and clearance. The Tribunal noted that the department had visited the workshop earlier, but held that such visit by itself did not establish that all material facts had been brought to the department's knowledge. The earlier view in the appellant's own case on invocation of the longer period was followed for the period prior to 10-7-1987.

Conclusion: The extended period was upheld for the period prior to 10-7-1987, and the demand for that period survived.

Issue (ii): Whether the goods manufactured during the period 10-7-1987 to 26-7-1988 were entitled to exemption under Notification No. 182/87-C.E.

Analysis: The Tribunal applied the earlier decision in the appellant's own case and held that Notification No. 182/87-C.E. was available to the goods manufactured by the appellant from 10-7-1987 onwards. On that basis, the duty demand relating to that period could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The exemption was held applicable in favour of the assessee for the period 10-7-1987 to 26-7-1988.

Issue (iii): Whether trusses, columns and wireless/lighting towers were dutiable, and whether water tank was dutiable

Analysis: Trusses, columns and wireless/lighting towers were treated as not coming into existence as excisable goods until they were embedded in earth, and were therefore held not dutiable. By contrast, the plea regarding water tank was raised for the first time at the appellate stage, was factual in nature, and was not supported by material evidence on record; the Tribunal therefore declined to accept it.

Conclusion: Trusses, columns and wireless/lighting towers were held not dutiable, while the water tank was held dutiable.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the extent of relief for the exempt period and for trusses, columns and wireless/lighting towers, while the duty demand was sustained for the remaining goods and period, with penalty left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: An exemption notification must be applied according to its terms, and goods that emerge only upon becoming embedded in earth are not treated as dutiable excisable goods before such embedding.

---