TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 1072
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ufacturers of "Structures and parts thereof made of Iron and Steel", falling under Tariff Item No. 7308 9090 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. It has been alleged that the respondent has manufactured and clandestinely removed the finished goods from the factory of production, valued at Rs.14,39,65,038/- during the period from 2010-11 (from July, 2010 onwards) to 2014-15 (up to July, 2014), without payment of central excise duty of Rs.1,63,93,207/- (including cess). 3. On the basis of the above allegations, a Show Cause Notice was issued to the respondent on 10.07.2015. 3.1. After due process, the said Notice came to be adjudicated vide the Order-in-Original dated 28.02.2017 wherein the demand of central excise duty raised in the Show Cause Notice was confirmed, along with interest; a penalty equal to the amount of duty demand confirmed was imposed on the respondent under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, along with a penalty of Rs.50,000/- under Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 3.2. On appeal, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals-II), vide the impugned order dated 19.03.2018 has set aside the demands of duty along with interest and penalties confirmed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ithout delivery of the goods was established. (iii) The Commissioner (Appeals) had erred by not considering the CBEC Circular No 107/18/95-CX dated 02.03.1995 wherein it was clarified that no Cenvatable invoice could be issued by a registered dealer until goods have been received by them and a dealer could not receive the goods without a go-down. Proper investigation was duly carried out at the end of dealer M/s. Dankuni Steels Ltd., which resulted in the discovery of issuance of fake invoices by the said dealer and as the dealer had no go-down for dealing with such huge quantity of inputs against which only documents were issued for passing on the credit without supply of the inputs and accordingly, the department had revoked the Central Excise registrations of the said dealer on observing due process. (iv) The conjoint reading of Rule 4 and 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 states that for taking Cenvat credit it is essential that inputs should be received in the factory accompanied by specified documents along with the inputs and these views have also been upheld in by the CESTAT in the case of Baldev Raj Ram Murti [2007 (220) ELT 786 (Tri. Del.)], wherein it ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the respondent has fabricated these structures at their factory premises; the ground taken by the Department is that the said goods were not fabricated at the site of erection, but at their factory premises and thus, such conversion of the aforesaid raw materials and components rendered the products marketable. It is pointed out by the Ld. Advocate for the respondent that the goods were not being sold by the respondent to the clients; they were fabricating the structures as per the requirement of their clients and thus, the structures are not marketable as the same are tailor-made as per the specific requirement of the customer. In view of the above, it is the submission of the Ld. Advocate for the respondent that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly decided that the goods in question are not marketable and thus dropped the demands. Accordingly, he prayed for rejecting the appeal filed by the Revenue. 6. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 7. We find that the respondent has manufactured truss, columns, girders, etc., as per the layout of the given structures. They use Angles, Channels, Plates, Joists, Tubes, Rods, etc., for fabrication of the said structur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....removed from their factory as a newly identifiable and marketable goods emerging out of a manufacturing process classifiable under sub-heading 73089090 of the Central Excise Tariff as steel structure and hence excisable and liable to duty. The Appellant have mainly contended with case laws that the impugned goods are not marketable and hence not dutiable. Thus, the issue to be decided is that whether or not the appellant is liable to pay duty on different steel structures fabricated and pre-engineered in their factory as parts of factory shed as per specification of their customer and removed from their factory for erection at site. 7. In this regard I find that in the explanation to the Section 2(d) of the Central Excise Act, it is given that, "For the purpose of this clause goods include any article or material substance which is capable of being bought and sold for a consideration and such s shall be deemed to be marketable." Thus, it is clearly seen that the twin test contemplated by the Excise law is that the goods must not only be manufactured but they also should be capable of being marketed; an article does not become liable to excise duty merely because of its spe....