TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (3) TMI 1198
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Voltas Limited, Mumbai - 33 having the factory at Taloja, District Raigad, executed a works contract for M/s. Hindustan Lever Limited, Taloja for the assembly of (1) Brine Chilling unit20 TR and (2) Package Chiller 7.5 TR at the factory premises of the latter. The said Chiller packages were assembled and commissioned in the premises of M/s. Hindustan Lever Limited on 31/12/1996 as informed by M/s. Hindustan Lever Limited vide letter dated 14/06/2001. The main components of the said chiller packages are (i) compressor unit, (ii) condenser unit, (iii) chiller, (iv) controllers such as expansion valve, pressure and temperature cut outs and gauges for pressure and temperature. For assembling the said chiller packages the pressure unit is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oposed to recover interest on the duty demanded under the provisions of Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act. 2.2 The appellant submitted that the chilling systems were erected and commissioned at the premises of Hindustan Lever in July-September, 1996 and various components constituting the said plant, such as, compressor, condenser, chiller, etc. were manufactured at their Thane plant and cleared on payment of duty. The final invoice, after commissioning, were also raised by them during July and September, 1996. Therefore, the notice is time-barred having been issued after a period of 5 years from the relevant date. They further contended that the chiller plant erected at the site of M/s. Hindustan Lever Limited is part of the large....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e impugned order dated 31/07/2003 upheld the order passed by the lower adjudicating authority. However, he reduced the demand of duty of Rs. 2,76,099/- and penalty of Rs. 2,76,099/- to the extent of availability of modvat credit as per the duty paying documents to be produced by the appellant-assessee to the adjudicating authority. He also set aside the penalty of Rs. 50,000/- each imposed under Rule 173Q and 209A on the appellant and M/s. Hindustan Lever. The appellant is before us against the said order. 3. The appellant contends that the show-cause notice is barred by limitation of time as it has been issued after a period of 5 years.They submit that the chilling systems were erected and commissioned in July/September 1996 wher....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....elies upon the following decisions in support of his contention: (i) Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. vs. CCE 2005 (190) ELT 301; (ii) Prem Fabricators vs. CCE 2010 (250) ELT 260; (iii) Triveni Engineering & Industries Ltd. vs. CCE 2000 (120) ELT 273 (SC); (iv) CCE vs. Man Structurals Ltd. 2001 (130) ELT 401 (SC); and (v) Nizam Sugar Factory vs. CCE 1999 (114) ELT 429 and reiterates the findings of the lower appellate authority. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. The Central Board of Excise and Customs issued a circular from File No. 154/26/99-Cx.4 dated 15/01/2002 with regard to the excisability of plant machinery assembled at site. With respect to refrigeration/air conditioning plan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....idual parts such as compressor, condenser, etc. which have already suffered duty. Therefore, the argument of the department that the chilling plant package as a whole is a movable property is devoid of merits and liable to be rejected. 6. In the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. (referred supra), the issue for consideration was whether the parts of iron and steel structures fixed on immovable property are goods or not. The larger bench of this Tribunal in the said case held that the immovable iron and steel structures not being goods will not fall under Heading 73.08 of the Central Excise Tariff. Parts of structures which are in the removable state will be subject to excise duty under Heading 73.08 notwithstanding that they are get....