TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2001 (10) TMI 173
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....esign and engg., full works, fabrication works at site, supply of mechanical and electrical goods, erection, commissioning of the entire system, site testing and satisfactory performance test of the complete coal handling plant with all equipments, accessories, instruments and necessary controls. For the erection of the said plant, which runs to 1 K.M. in length, the appellant used its own shop manufactured items as also the bought out items. The appellants were issued a show cause notice dt. 6-3-98 by the Commissioner of Central Excise, BBSR demanding Central Excise duty to the tune of Rs. 1,23,70,938.30 (rupees one crore twenty-three lakhs seventy thousand nine hundred thirty-eight and thirty paisa) on the alleged ground that during the c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....have been manufactured by the appellant i.e. material handling equipments, (conveyor), weighbridge and crusher. As regards weighbridge is concerned it is the appellants' contention that they have not manufactured the same, but has bought it from M/s. Peico Electronics and Electricals Ltd. For this our attention has been drawn to the purchase order placed on M/s. Peico which consists of complete design, manufacturing, supply, transportation to the site of Hirakud, supervision of erection and commissioning etc. Copies of the invoices raised by M/s. Peico on the appellants are also enclosed. Gate passes under which the entire weighbridge was supplied to the site of M/s. Hirakud are appearing at page 496 of the paper book and show payment of du....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ormally attached to the foundation. In this connection he also draws our attention to the observations made by the adjudicating authority. We find that the adjudicating authority has observed as under :- "4.3 Let me now examine with reference to the movable criteria mentioned under Sl. No. (iii) of para 4.0 above. MBE have contended that 'Coal Handling System' comes into existence running over a stretch of 1 Km. in length, which is embedded to the earth and is therefore an immovable property. I find out of these three machines, on which show cause notice has been raised, the 'Weighbridge' and 'Crusher' do not spread over 1 Km. length. What spreads over substantial portion of this length is the 'Conveyor'. 'Conveyor' is a material handlin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ivil work are required to be carried out, the same does not render the 'Machine' mounted on such civil/structural foundation into an immovable property. This is also because the different parts/components of the said 'machinery' can be dismantled from the civil/structural foundations and repaired/substituted/replaced as and when required. Such 'Machinery' i.e. 'Conveyors' etc. are also capable of being sold much in the same way these were purchased, if any such contingencies were to arise. It cannot be held that the conveyors are permanently attached to the earth and therefore become an immovable property." 6. A reading of the above paragraph shows that the adjudicating authority has relied upon the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing v. CCE [1997 (93) E.L.T. 776 (T) = 1997 (19) RLT 68]. It was held in the said decision in the case of Ludhiana Bottling that conveyor system for transformation of crates of aerated waters was non-excisable as the system was embedded to earth and therefore, immovable property. Similarly in the case of Elecon Engg. Co. it was held that the coal handling plants and other plants involved in those appeals have civil, technical and other structures making it even more embedded to earth and incapable of marketing. He submits that the conveyor system has emerged after piece by piece erection and cannot be considered to be brought to the market as such and sold. 8. We also note that the Tribunal in its latest decision in the case of Elecon En....