AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1999 (12) TMI 556
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lty of Rs. 20 lakhs under Rule 9(2) read with Section 11A, Rules 173Q and 226 of the Central Excise Rules, on the appellants. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal may briefly be stated as under: 3. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture PCC websol panels under sub-heading 6807 of the Schedule annexed to the Central Excise Tariff, without getting themselves registered as required under Section 6 of the Central Excises Act, 1944 read with Rule 174 of the Rules framed thereunder. On 2-2-93, the officers of the Revenue department visited their project office premises at Phagwara and called upon them vide letter dated 2-9-93 to supply information relating to the manufacture of websol at their factory side at village Chi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....intained that their activities did not amount to manufacture of websol and crushed stones which were being used by them for construction of the roads and bridges under the provisions of the Central Excises Act and claimed benefit of exemption Notification No. 59/90-C.E., dated 20-3-90 on the ground that their goods were specified goods manufactured at the site of construction of building for use at the site. But the Collector did not agree with their plea and passed the impugned order. 5. Feeling dissatisfied with the order passed by the Collector the appellants have come up in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. We have heard the learned JDR and the learned counsel for the appellants. 7. The learned counsel for the appel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ise duty, the test of manufacture and marketability has to be satisfied. This very principle of law has been laid down in all the above referred cases relied upon by the counsel. In Moti Laminates Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, 1995 (76) E.L.T. 241 (S.C.), the Apex Court has also so ruled. But in the case in hand, the Collector has failed to determine and adjudicate that the websol allegedly manufactured by the appellants, satisfied the test of marketability i.e. they were not marketable. In the impugned order, he has simply opined that since the websol were manufactured at a place different than the place of their use and as such the test of marketability was satisfied. But these observations of the Collector cannot be said to be justifiable under the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the highways. The learned counsel has referred in support of his contention to these cases - (1) CCE, Hyderabad v. Chemphar Drugs & Liniments. (2) Padmini Products v. CCE - 1989 (43) E.L.T. 195 (S.C.) (3) Tamil Nadu Housing Board v. CCE, Madras - 1994 (74) E.L.T. 9 (S.C.) (4) CCE v. HMM Limited - 1995 (76) E.L.T. 497 (S.C.) (5) Gujarat State Fertilizer Co. Ltd. v. CCE - 1998 (98) E.L.T. 840 (T) (6) Executive Engineer, KSEB v. CCE - 1997 (92) E.L.T. 264 (T) (7) Crown Sanitarywares (P) Ltd. v. CCE - 1997 (93) E.L.T. 499 (T) 10. We have considered th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that the appellants were using the goods which were allegedly excisable in the construction of the bridges and the roads on the highways, they were suppose to come in action and initiate the proceedings against them. Therefore, obviously no suppression of the material facts by the appellants from that Revenue department can be attributed to them. The Collector has failed to discuss this matter in his impugned order before justifying the invocation of the extended period of limitation. In Pushpam Pharmaceuticals Company Ltd. v. CCE, Bombay, 1995 (78) E.L.T. 401 referred by the counsel, it has been ruled by the Apex Court that any omission on the part of the assessee unless it is deliberate to escape from duty, is not sufficient to invoke th....