2006 (7) TMI 362

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f the duty and penalty amounts. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Pre-Stressed Concrete pipes (PSC pipes) falling under SH 6807.90 of the CETA Schedule. In 2004, they were awarded a contract by the Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board (TWAD Board) for undertaking a turnkey project of construction of Common Water Supply Scheme (CWSS) for Nagapattinam municipality and for its maintenance for one year after completion of the project. The total value of the contract was about Rs. 52 Crores. The project included (a) construction of well-cum-pump house, (b) construction of sumps, (c) supply, erection and commissioning of pump-sets, (d) laying of AC pipeline, (e) laying of PVC pipeline and (f) construction of PSC pipeline. The....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ial duty of over Rs. 1 Crore. The SCNs proposed penalties also. These proposals were contested. It was in adjudication of this dispute that the Commissioner passed the impugned order. 2. Ld. counsel for the appellants referred to various provisions of the agreement entered into between the appellants and TWAD Board and submitted that it was an indivisible contract and there was no sale of any material by the assessee (contractor) to the Board (employer) before completion of the turnkey project. There was no captive consumption of PSC pipes in the manufacture of any excisable goods, either. In the circumstances, according to ld. counsel, the assessable value of the goods could not be determined under Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Ex....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ng the records and considering the submissions, we do not think that the assessee has made out prima facie case against valuation of the subject goods under Section 4(1)(b) of the Central Excise Act. The case of PC Pole Factory (supra) cited by ld. counsel is, apparently, distinguishable from the instant case, wherein separate value of PSC poles is discernible from the contract. Ld. counsel has chosen to interpret the expression "sale" with the aid of the Sale of Goods Act and other statutes. We are not impressed with this approach inasmuch as "sale" is an expression specifically defined under the Central Excise Act. Its definition [vide Section 2(h) of the Act] reads as under :- "sale" and "purchase", with their grammatical variations a....