TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (2) TMI 312
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....truction of the bridges on the railway. As regards the merits of the case, the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Asian Techs Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-II - 2005 (189) E.L.T. 420 (Tri. - LB) has held that such PSC girders are excisable and it has further held that exemption under Notification No. 59/90-CE applicable to goods manufactured at site for construction of buildings does not apply to PSC girders. The learned S.D.R. appearing for Revenue also brings to our notice the subsequent decision of another Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. C.C.E., Aurangabad, Chandigarh, Kanpur & Chennai - 2005 (190) E.L.T. 301 (Tri. - LB) which has extensively gone into the issue of manufactu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or taking necessary registration nor did they comply with the excise rules pertaining to manufacture, removal and payment of duty. He further states that under the contract with KRCL, the appellants were obliged to discharge excise duty liability. 2. We find that the Show Cause Notice dtd. 27-1-1994 was issued to the appellants by the Superintendent of Central Excise, Ratnagiri Range demanding duty of Rs. 32,35,575/- in respect of 75 PSC girders valued at Rs. 1,61,77,875/- However, this Show Cause Notice has been withdrawn by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Ratnagiri Division on 11-3-1994 (and not on 11-3-1996 as contended by the learned Advocate) on the ground that the Show Cause Notice dtd. 27-1-1994 was issued without th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... activities either by declaration or otherwise and therefore they have suppressed the information from the Department. It is further seen that there is nothing on record to show that the noticees have approached the jurisdictional Excise officers to enquire about the procedure to be followed by them in regard to the activities carried out by them particularly when excise liability was expressly accepted by them in the contract. In the absence of any such evidence, I hold that the notices have suppressed the facts from the Department. " 4. We also find from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dharampal Satyapal (supra) that where the assessee is in the business of manufacture and did not disclose the existence of m....