2005 (8) TMI 196

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the Commissioner in his Order-in-Original dated 30-12-2004 demanded a sum of Rs. 36,24,598/- under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Further he imposed equal penalty under Section 11AC and demanded interest under Section 11AB of the Act. A penalty of Rs. 25,000/- imposed on M/s. Visakhapatnam Port Trust. The appellants have strongly challenged the findings of the Commissioner. 2.Shri G. Shivadass, learned Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellants and Shri Ganesh Havanur, learned SDR appeared on behalf of the Revenue. 3.The learned Advocate made the following submissions :- (i)         The liability to Excise duty under Section 3 of the Central Excise Act should arise only if t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rh v. Damodar Ropeways & Construction Co. (P) Ltd [2003 (151) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.)] (d)        Ganapati Ropeways Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE [1999 (112) E.L.T. 395] (e)        McNally Bharat Engineering v. CCE [2002 (143) E.L.T. 334] (f)         T.R.F. Ltd. v. CCE [2002 (143) E.L.T. 161] (g)        ACC Ltd. v CCE [2002 (141) E.L.T. 497] (h)        CCE, Mumbai v. Josts Engg. Co. Ltd. [2002 (146) E.L.T. 29] (i)         Fenner India Ltd. v. CCE, Nagpur [2001 (129) E.L.T. 644] (j)       &n....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....T. 17 (S.C.)] (b)        Mittal Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE [1996 (88) E.L.T. 622 (S.C.)] (c)        Duncans Industries Ltd. v. State of U.P. & Ors [2000 (88) ECR 19 (S.C.)] (d)        TTG Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Raipur [2004 (167) E.L.T. 501 (S.C.)] (v)        In the case of Nikhil Equipments Pvt Ltd. v. CCE, Pune [1997 (95) E.L.T. 527], it has been held that storage system fitted to rails is immovable property and not liable to excise duty. This decision has been affirmed by the Apex Court in its decision reported as CCE, Pune v. Nikhil Equipments Pvt. Ltd. [2004 (165) E.L.T. 487 (....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....to duty, it cannot be held that there was suppression of facts, with a wilful intent to evade excise duty. In their own case, it was held by the Tribunal in Final Order No. C.II/1046/2003-WZB, dated 12-5-2003 [2003 (155) E.L.T. 489 (T)] that turnkey projects executed by the appellants are not liable to excise duty. Hence penalty under Section 11AC is not justifiable. 4.The learned SDR reiterated the points in the Order-in-Original. 5.We have gone through the records of the case carefully. We have also seen the photograph of the equipment furnished by the appellants. The impugned goods have been assembled at site on the basis of turnkey projects. They have only very limited mobility. They are firmly embedded on a specific location. The....