TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2000 (8) TMI 86
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... site of the customer. On the ground that the appellants failed to declare manufacture of turbo alternators, show cause notices were issued to them by the Collectors of Central Excise at Allahabad and Bangalore, inter alia, stating that turbo alternators are liable to excise duty under Heading 85.02 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (for short 'the CET Act'). The appellants resisted the claim on the ground that (i) a turbo alternator set comes into existence on its being fixed permanently on the land as such it is not an excisable good but an immovable property and (ii) by the combination of 'steam turbine' and alternator, a turbo alternator emerges at the site of the customers which does not involve any process of manufacturing, therefore, they are not liable to excise duty. 3.On August 24, 1995, the Collector of Central Excise, Allahabad and on August 28, 1992, the Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore confirmed the demand raised in the show cause notices. The assessees filed two appeals against the orders of the said Collectors before the CEGAT. On the question of levy of excise duty on turbo alternator, the CEGAT, by the impugned order dated June 20, 1996, held that tu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....there is no movement of the alternator pedestal other accessories are installed at their respective places. Having regard to this process, the CEGAT held, and in our view rightly, that the assessees manufactured turbo alternators. 9.In State of Maharashtra v. The Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. [1977 (1) SCC 643], the question was whether mixing of manganese ores, obtained from different mines, by a pre-determined mode of unloading at the ports resulted in manufacture of a conglomerate termed "oriental mixture" by the company. It was held that the formation of the mixture by the mere process of unloading did not involve any process of manufacture. The term 'oriental mixture' was employed by the company to name a particular type of conglomerate which the unloading at one place of various types of manganese ore produced. What is to be determined is whether there has been manufacture of a new product which has a separate commercially current name in the market and that mere giving of a new name by the seller to what is really the same product is not the manufacture of a new product. 10.Nearer to the issue is the decision of this Court in Narne Tulaman Manufacturers Pvt.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3) (4) 85.02 ELECTRIC GENERATING SETS AND ROTARY CONVERTERS 8502.10 8502.10 Diesel generating sets assembled, at site of installation, from duty paid engine and generator Nil 8502.90 Other 13%" 13.A perusal of the Entry shows that a turbo alternator does not find a place therein eo nomine. The question then will be whether a 'turbo alternator' falls within the meaning of electric generating set. To bring a turbo alternator under that heading it must be shown to have the attributes of excisable goods' as understood in the Excise Law. They are mobility and market ability. The article in question should be capable of being brought and sold in the market - a test which is too well established by series of decisions of this Court to be elaborated here. 14.There can be no doubt that if an article is an immovable property, it cannot be termed as "excisable goods" for purposes of the Act. From a combined reading of the definition of 'immovable property' in Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, Section 3(25) of the General Clauses Act, it is evident that in an immovable property there is neither mobility nor marketabilit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... crystallisers answer the meaning of goods fell for consideration of this Court in Mittal Engineering Works (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Meerut [1996 (88) E.L.T. 622 (S.C.) =1997 (1) SCC 203]. Mono vertical crystallisers are used in sugar factories to exhaust molasses of sugar. The component parts of mono vertical crystallisers were cleared on payment of excise duty from the premises of the appellants therein and they were then assembled, erected and attached to the earth at the site of the customers' sugar factory. The process involved welding and gas cutting. The CEGAT held that the mono vertical crystalliser was complete when it left the factory and upheld the demand of excise duty on clearance thereof. This Court pointed out that the mono vertical crystalliser, had to be assembled, erected and attached to the earth by a foundation at the site of the sugar factory and it was not capable of being sold as it is, without anything more. Bharucha, J., speaking for the Court, observed : "The erection and installation of a plant is not excisable and to so hold would, impermissibly, bring into the net of excise duty all manner of plants and installations." The case of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y does not involve any dismantling of the turbine and alternator in the sense of pulling them down or taking them to pieces but only undoing the foundation bolts arrangement by which they are fixed to the platform and uncoupling of the two units and, therefore, the turbo alternator did not answer the test of permanency laid down by this Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay (supra). In our view, the findings recorded do not justify the conclusion of the Tribunal inasmuch as on removal a turbo alternator gets dismantled into its components - steam turbine and alternator. It appears that the Tribunal did not keep in mind the distinction between a turbo alternator and its components. Thus, in our view, the test of permanency fails. 20.The marketability test requires that the goods as such should be in a position to be taken to the market and sold and from the above findings it follows that to take it to the market the turbo alternator has to be separated into its components - turbine and the other alternator - but then it would not remain turbo alternator, therefore, the test is incorrectly applied. Though, there is no finding that without fixing to the platf....