TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (3) TMI 255
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 3.Heard both sides. 4.The ld. Advocate argued that the show cause notice is barred by limitation inasmuch as it was issued beyond the statutory period of six months as it existed at the relevant time as the Department had knowledge of the fact that the appellants were manufacturing PSC girders in 94 itself. The show cause notice was issued only in 1996. It is pleaded that the manufacture of girders had taken place in the full view of the Public and therefore no suppression can be alleged (Gammon India v. CCE, Goa was relied upon). [2002 (146) E.L.T. 173 (Tri. - Mumbai)]. It was also argued that the inordinate delay in issuing the notice vitiated the proceedings conducted in pursuance of such a notice. It was further urged that mere inaction on the part of the assessee in informing the Department cannot be a ground for invoking larger period of limitation unless it is established that such withholding of information was done with an intent to evade duty (CCE v. Chemphar Drugs and Liniments). [1989 (40) E.L.T. 276 (S.C.) relied upon]. The appellants produced copies of their replies to the Department's queries during the years 94-96 in support of their contention that the depar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... follow the instructions. The period involved in this case is 94-95 and the show cause notice was issued in 1996. The plea that there is an inordinate delay in issuing the notice is not tenable. The appellants reliance on the decision in CCE v. Camphor Drugs [1989 (40) E.L.T. 276 S.C.] does not help its case as in the appellants case we find that it is not a mere inaction on their part which is being relied upon by the Dept. to invoke larger period of limitation. 8.The appellants argued that the activity of making PSC girders for the purpose of laying a bridge does not amount to manufacture. This contention cannot be accepted in view of the fact that separate goods known as 'girders' come into existence after cement concrete and steel is subjected to certain processes. The fact that the girders are subsequently fixed on the bridge do not make them immovable property either. It is common knowledge that a bridge consists of various parts which are fixed on it permanently. That does not mean that the various parts of the bridge become immovable property and for that reason are not goods. Girders are cast at site, transported to the bridge head and then are launched on the bridge. I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s to cover goods falling under Chapter 68.07 which are used in any construction and not only in buildings. We are also of the opinion a building as it is normally understood does not cover a bridge, dam etc. The disputed period in the present case is June 1994 - February 1995, a period covered under Notification No. 59/90. 11.The appellants are therefore not entitled to the benefit of exemption. We notice that the issue whether Notification No. 59/90 covers goods meant for construction of bridges has not been specifically examined by the Tribunal which only decided the issue pertaining to the meaning and purport of the word 'Site'. 12We have perused the various decision of the. Tribunal on the eligibility of PSC girders/other goods falling under Chapter Heading 6807 when manufactured at site when Notification No. 59/90-C.E. was in force. None of these decisions dealt with the issue of whether or not Notification No. 59/90 applies to goods manufactured at site for constructions of structures other than buildings. (a) Pratibha Industries v. CCE, Bombay - Final Order No. 380-381/97 dt. 8-5-1997 The issue decided pertains to the que....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the year 1995 and issuance of Notification No. 51/95, substituting the words 'site of building' with 'site of construction' the word 'building' has to be interpreted properly. That a Notification has to be strictly constructed etc. is well established. 13.Yet another contention raised by the appellant is in respect of valuation of the goods. The Commissioner arrived at the value adopting the costing method. He took into consideration the total cost of the product, labour charges and profit to arrive at the assessable value. This data was furnished to the Department by the appellants themselves. In the appeal memorandum at para 27 the appellants made reference to certain deductions that ought to have been given. They have, however not furnished any details. In fact the appellants were attempting to argue that in a work contract it is difficult to assign values to individual items of work. While it may be so, the appellants plea that because it is difficult to assign value to individual items no duty becomes chargeable on goods which are produced while executing a contract is not acceptable. We therefore uphold the valuation. 14.The Commissioner held the girders liable to confi....