2006 (6) TMI 13

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....etails about the manufacturer, nor any duty payment particulars. According to the Revenue, the appellants had assembled the water treatment plant and, therefore, they were the actual manufacturers and the goods were liable to payment of Central Excise duty at 10% ad valorem. 4. The authorities below, on the basis of the material on record came to a finding that the appellant erected/assembled and commissioned the plant after purchasing various components and items from the local market and assembling them and thereafter fixed the same on a foundation. It was found that the purchase and erection of such plant was not reflected in the Central Excise records, and the appellant has suppressed the material facts, justifying invocation of the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sion is erroneous, because various parts of the treatment plant were purchased and assembled by the appellant and the marketable commodity, namely, water treatment plant was brought into existence by such manufacturing process by the appellant. 6. The contention that the extended period could not have been invoked is also erroneous, because the appellant had suppressed the fact of purchasing the components of water treatment plant and assembling them which constituted a manufacturing process. As noted above, the show cause notice was within the extended period of limitation. 7. It is clear from the facts on record that before the water treatment plant could be fixed on the foundation, it was required to be assembled, so that it could ....