Excisability of fabricated steel bridge components upheld, with extended limitation and penalties sustained for non-disclosure.

Steel pilings and girders separately fabricated for bridge construction were treated as movable goods at the stage of manufacture, because they were not yet embedded in the structure when made; on that basis, they were held excisable and central excise duty was leviable. The demand was also held not to be time-barred, since the fabrication was not disclosed to the department and mere public visibility of the bridge work was not treated as sufficient disclosure; the extended period under the proviso to section 11A was therefore upheld. Penalties were sustained as proportionate to the duty liability and the statutory non-compliance.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether steel pilings and girders fabricated by the appellant and used in bridge construction were liable to central excise duty as movable manufactured goods; (ii) Whether the demand was barred by limitation and the extended period under the proviso to section 11A could be invoked; (iii) Whether penalties were imposable.

Issue (i): Whether steel pilings and girders fabricated by the appellant and used in bridge construction were liable to central excise duty as movable manufactured goods.

Analysis: The goods were separately fabricated before being used in the bridge. At the time of manufacture they were not embedded in the structure and therefore did not acquire the character of immovable property. The process of fabrication amounted to manufacture.

Conclusion: The goods were excisable and duty was leviable, against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand was barred by limitation and the extended period under the proviso to section 11A could be invoked.

Analysis: The fabrication was not declared to the department, and mere public visibility of the bridge construction was not treated as disclosure. The appellant failed to comply with the required procedural obligations, and the plea of a local practice of non-levy was rejected. Reference to section 11C did not establish any contrary practice sufficient to defeat duty demand.

Conclusion: The extended period was rightly invoked and the demand was not time-barred, against the appellant.

Issue (iii): Whether penalties were imposable.

Analysis: Penalties were considered proportionate having regard to the duty involved and the appellant's failure to pay duty and comply with the statutory requirements.

Conclusion: The penalties were upheld, against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The duty demand and penalties were sustained, and the appeals failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Goods separately fabricated and later used in a civil structure remain movable and excisable at the stage of manufacture, and non-disclosure to the department can justify invocation of the extended limitation period and imposition of penalty.

---