TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2001 (1) TMI 476
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted by the Central Excise officers on 2-9-1994 who conducted various checks and verifications. Documents/ records pertaining to the purchase orders for the kilns/furnaces were also seized by the officers. After a lapse of about two and a half years from the date of visit, show cause notice dated 16-4-1997 was issued by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcutta-I alleging that the appellants had manufactured kilns/furnaces in its factory and removed the same in knocked down condition from their factory. Accordingly notice proposed to confirm demand of duty on the said kilns/furnaces by classifying the same under Heading 8514.00 and 8417.00. Longer period of limitation was invoked by alleging suppression of facts and wilful mis-statement w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of such steel structures was much below the exemption of Rs. 30 lakhs as envisaged in the Notification No. 175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986 or 1/93-C.E., dated 28-2-1993, as the case may be. 4. In view of the foregoing Shri Banerjee strongly argues that the type of kilns/furnaces constructed at the customer's site has not been appreciated by the Commissioner. It would appear from the photocopies that the said kilns/furnaces cannot be manufactured and thereafter taken to the site in unassembled condition. They come into existence as a result of foundation of structures and masonry works, like building. These cannot be dismantled from one place and reassembled in another place. A permanent foundation is to be laid on the ground. Thereafter ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t is obvious that when without fixing, it does not come into being, it can hardly be functional". That the impugned kilns/furnaces were/are not goods since immovable and as such not dutiable, in support the following cases are relied upon :- 1. ACE Building (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Chandigarh - 1999 (107) E.L.T. 308 2. Elecon Engg. Co. Ltd. v. CCE, Chandigarh - 1999 (107) E.L.T. 337 3. Shree Siddeshwar SSK Ltd. v. CCE - 1999 (109) E.L.T. 472 4. Orissa Construction Ltd. v. CCE, BBSR - 1997 (95) E.L.T. 398 5. Haryana State Electricity Board v. CCE, New Delhi - 1998 (2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at the duty has not been charged on the entire kilns, but on the parts manufactured by the appellant. 9. After giving our careful consideration to the issues involved and after going through the impugned order we find that the adjudicating authority in Para 3.2 has observed that "again, I find that the noticees' argument that the Revenue has sought to levy excise duty on immovable properties or turnkey project is mis-placed. The notice is quite explicit in this regard. Duty has been demanded on equipment manufactured and supplied in knocked down/semi assembled condition for which specific delivery notes were issued and invoices raised." (emphasis provided). A reading of the above paragraph would show that the nature of the basic disp....