2001 (1) TMI 579

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., Bhubaneswar-I are as under :- Name of the Party   Duty   Penalty     Rs.    Rs. M/s. Western India Machinery Co. 33,21,425.25   33,30,000.00 [S.P. 16/2000 (E/RV-11/2000)]       M/s. Western India Machinery Co. 3,19,669.41   3,20,000.00 [S.P. No. 18/2000 (E/RV-13/2000)]       M/s. Western India Machinery Co. 5,69,012.31   5,70,000.00 [S.P. No. 20/2000 (E/RV-15/2000)]       M/s. Vineet Electrical Industries (P) Ltd. 23,31,110.89   23,35,000.00 [S.P. No. 15/2000 (E/RV-10/2000)]       M/s. Vineet Electrical Industries (....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s fixed. On the base frame, the generator and the engine is mounted on a permanent basis. The engine of the D.G. Sets rotates 90 thousand times in an hour. The generator cannot run without proper grouting and strong permanent fixed base which makes the entire D.G. Sets into an immovable property. Furthermore, it is their contention that as per the Indian Electricity Act, earthing is compulsory in each case by making provision for pipes and iron wires to the level of 15 ft./20 ft. underground. D.G. Sets cannot be made ready for use unless pipes and wires are grouted to the earth to avoid electric shock. Consequent upon installation of the D.G. Set on the concrete base and wires and pipes up to 15 ft./20 ft. underneath the earth, the D.G. Set....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....being bought and sold in the market." 4. We find that an identical issue cropped up before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Triveni Engineering & Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise reported in 2000 (120) E.L.T. 273 (S.C.) = 2000 (40) RLT 1 (S.C.) wherein it was held that installation and erection of turbo alternator on the platform constructed on the land would be immovable property which does not pass the test of mobility and marketability and as such cannot be considered as excisable goods. We find that their Lordship in the said case in para 20 have observed that marketability test requires that the goods 'as such' should be in a position to be taken to the market and sold and from the above findings it fol....