TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2001 (9) TMI 151
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tted that M/s. Oil and Natural Gas Commission (ONGC) for setting up a Gas Processing and distribution Complex entered into a contract with the appellants on 4-10-1985 to perform various fabrication works at site which were scheduled to be completed by 16-1-1986; that the work of fabrication and erection was completed by February 1987; that only work like painting, putting of window frames, doors, rolling shutters, etc. was completed on 31-10-1988; that this is evident from their letter dated 1-3-1989 addressed to M/s. ONGC wherein it was mentioned that work relating to Pipe Rack and Pipe Trestles had been completed during May, 1986 to January, 1987; that similarly as per minutes dated 24-1-1987, Compressor House Structural Work was complete....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Newton Engg. & Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Vadodra [1998 (98) E.L.T. 468 (T) = 1998 (74) ECR 262 (T)] has held that "In view of the existence of contrary decisions in the past the plea that the appellant was under a bona fide belief that job charges alone constituted the assessable value is plausible"; that the Tribunal therefore, held the demand to be time barred; that similar views were expressed by the Tribunal in the case of New Polymer Industries v. CCE [1991 (52) E.L.T. 145 (T) = 1990 (30) ECR 77 (T)]. The learned Advocate also relied upon the decision in the case of Pushpam Pharmaceutical Company v. C.C.E., Bombay [1995 (78) E.L.T. 401 (S.C.)] wherein it was held that "the appellant could not be held guilty of suppression whe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bsp; Mittal Engg. Works (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Meerut [1996 (88) E.L.T. 622 (S.C.)] 3.2 The learned Advocate, further submitted that if the activity undertaken by them is held to be amounting to manufacture and excise duty is payable by them, they will be eligible to avail of Modvat credit of the duty paid on inputs; that the computation of the demand is incorrect as department has taken total quantity of steel issued to them by ONGC. during the relevant period, proceeding on the assumption that the entire steel was used in the manufacture of impugned goods; that no penalty is imposable on them as they had bona fide belief that activity undertaken by them did not amount to manufacture. He also relied upon the decision in the case of Gravure Prin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....afters and other items amounts to manufacture. She also mentioned that Tribunal in this case has considered the decision in the case of Aruna Industries also. She further submitted that the demand of duty is not beyond the period of 5 years as contended by the learned Advocate for the appellants; that as per the completion certificate given by M/s. Engineers India Ltd., actual completion date was 31-10-1988 and as the show cause notice was issued on 7-7-1992, it was within the period of 5 years; that the minutes of the meeting dated 23-1-1987 no where provides that dates mentioned therein were the dates of completion of the work; in fact according to the minutes appellants had confirmed that this was their last and final programme for compl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fabricated into the structure, and thus simultaneously on coming into existence, become part of the structure and thus becoming immovable in character." 5. We have considered the submission of both the sides, we observe that the department had issued the show cause notice on 7-7-1992 demanding Central Excise duty invoking extended period of limitation on the ground that appellants had suppressed the fact of manufacture and clearance from the Department. Appellant on the other hand have claimed that they were under the bona fide belief that the activity undertaken by them by fabrication Column, Trusses, Purlins, Pipe Trestles, etc. did not amount to manufacture and this bona fide belief was entertained by them in view of the decision of the....