Final Order Nos. A/32-33/2013-WZB/C-II(EB) arising from in Appeal Nos. E/2506 & 2814/2004. Case: S.K. Trading Company Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-II. CEGAT (Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal) & CESTAT (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal)
| Case Number | Final Order Nos. A/32-33/2013-WZB/C-II(EB) arising from in Appeal Nos. E/2506 & 2814/2004 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Shri T.C. Nair, Advocate and For Respondents: Shri Navneet, Addl. Commissioner (AR). |
| Judges | Shri S.S. Kang, Vice-President and Sahab Singh, Member (T) |
| Issue | Central Excise Tariff Act |
| Citation | 2014 (314) ELT 311 (Tri. - Mumbai) |
| Judgement Date | November 14, 2012 |
| Court | CEGAT (Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal) & CESTAT (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal) |
Order:
S.S. Kang, Vice-President, (West Zonal Bench At Mumbai)
-
Both the appeals are filed against a common order, therefore, are being taken up together.
-
The appellants challenged the impugned order whereby the adjudicating authority denied the benefit of Notification No. 61/90, dated 20-3-1990 as amended.
-
The brief facts of the case are that M/s. UP State Bridge Corporation (UPSBC), appellant who are engaged in the construction of bridges, have been awarded with a contract for construction of second Thane Creek Bridge by the Government of Maharashtra. The appellant M/s. UPSBC constructed Bridge Builder Systems (hereinafter referred to as BBS). The appellant M/s. UPSBC further placed the order on the other appellant i.e. M/s. S.K. Trading Company for fabrication of six BBS. A show cause notice was issued to the appellant demanding duty on the BBS by classifying the same under Chapter 84 of the Tariff. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand by classifying the same under sub-heading 84.80 of the Tariff. The appellant filed appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal vide order dated 19-9-2003 remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority to decide the issue of classification afresh. The present impugned order is passed in pursuance of the remand order passed by the Tribunal. In the present impugned order, the adjudicating authority held that BBSs are classifiable under Chapter 7308.90 and chargeable to duty @ 15% ad valorem by denying the benefit of Notification No. 61/90-C.E., dated 20-3-1990 on the ground that the BBSs are not fabricated at spot. The relevant portion of the findings of the adjudicating authority is reproduced below:-
The noticees have claimed the exemption under Notification No. 61/90, dated 20-3-1990 under which the goods falling under 73.08 fabricated at the site of work for use in construction work at such site were exempted from whole of the duty of excise. All the 8 sets of BBS manufactured cannot be considered as fabricated at site as this notification was applicable only to those cases where fabrication work was undertaken on the spot. Here Thane Creek Bridge extends from Navi Mumbai to Mumbai and the construction cannot be said to have been done at site. The site should connote a place, a ground or the land on which the bridge stands and it is practically impossible to undertake the construction work of a structural on such place or ground or land. Therefore, the structural manufactured at a...
To continue reading
Request your trial