1983 (8) TMI 287

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... and installed one Soyabin Dal Plant in their factory premises which was dutiable under Item 68 of the Central Excises an Salt Act, 1944. Accordingly he issued a demand for payment of Central Excise duty amounting to about Rs. 25,000/- under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules and imposed personal penalty of Rs. 15,000/- on the Appellants under Rule 173Q(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. In their appeal to the Tribunal, the appellants have stated that the question involved is whether the Dal Mill which is attached to earth should be charged to duty under Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. The Advocate for the Appellants has stated that the Dal Mill in question cannot be called "goods" and accordingly cannot be subjected to Central ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ll in question is not marketable, it cannot be considered as excisable goods. 2. The Advocate further submitted that the Dal Mill in question has been constructed without the aid of power and this has been clearly explained in the submissions that we made to the Additional Collector. The Advocate, however, did not submit any further evidence to this effect. The Advocate for the Appellants argued, without prejudice to the earlier argument, that the Dal Mill in question had not been removed from the factory nor was it consumed or utilised within the factory premises and accordingly could not be subjected to Central Excise duty. He referred in this connection to the case reported in E.L.T. 1983 Page 239 relating to J.K. Cotton Spinning....