TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1998 (4) TMI 328
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....i, ld. Counsel for the appellants raised two issues, (1) limitation; and (2) whether construction of storage tanks having a capacity of 10 lakhs liters on duty paid steel materials and erecting them on concrete foundation would amount to manufacture and whether such steel tanks would be classifiable as storage tanks or reservoirs under Chapter sub-heading 7309.00. 3. Ld. Counsel submitted that the appellants, who were manufacturers of sugar, generated molasses as a by-product during manufacture of sugar from which they also manufactured rectified spirit. For storage of rectified spirit, steel storage tank was necessary. Appellants had entered into an agreement with M/s. Sangameshwar Pipes and Steel Traders, Solapur on turnkey basis ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n it was fabricated it was just resting on the foundation. He further observed that the appellants had fabricated the steel storage tanks of 10 lakh liters capacity out of MS plates and sheets. Before they were permanently fixed to earth, the full storage tanks had come into existence. It was later that the storage tank was fixed permanently to earth. At the stage before fixing it permanently to earth, the storage tank was a movable item. Merely for the reason that it was not easily movable because of its volume and weight, it cannot be said that it was immovable. Accordingly, the Collector held that the steel storage tank in question was liable to Central Excise Duty and non-filing of classification list and non-declaration of the item and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... wherein it was held that plant fixed on the ground was immovable property and hence not `goods' liable to duty under erstwhile Tariff Item 68. He also draw attention to a more recent decision of the Tribunal in Gwalior Rayon Silk Mfg. (Wvg.) Co. Ltd. v. CCE [1993 (65) E.L.T. 121 (Tribunal)] in which the Tribunal had held that evaporator plants assembled and erected at site and built on cement concrete foundation and permanently laid and embedded in the ground is immovable property and not `goods'. Ld. Counsel also relied on the Apex Court decision in CCE v. Chemphor Drugs and Liniments reported in 1989 (40) E.L.T. 276 wherein the Apex Court had held that the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked when the Department had full knowl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....As regards the ground of limitation, we find that the SCN had based its allegations regarding failure to discharge duty liability on the ground that the steel storage tanks, fabricated by the appellants fell under Chapter sub-heading 7309 (sic). Appellants' main contention is that the fabrication and erection of the said steel tank cannot be considered to be a manufacturing activity since it was permanently attached to the earth and is built on concrete foundation attached to the earth. We observe that in its Final Order in Gwalior Rayond Silk Mfg. (Wvg.) Co. Ltd. v. CCE, supra, the Tribunal had considered the issue in relation to evaporator plant used for drying up liquid sodium sulphate. The said item was constructed on concrete platform ....