Appellant was served with the third SCN on 12.9.1988 for the period 16.3.1988 to 27.6.1988 on the same allegations.
Cause was shown by the appellant inter alia stating that numberexcise duty was payable.
Whether the girders can be companysidered as immovable property or number?
The said numberice was withdrawn stating The said Show Cause Notice has been issued without obtaining approval of the proper authority or by the proper officer.
Alleging that the appellant, for the period March 1993 and December 1994, although was involved in the manufacturing activity, by undertaking manufacture of 75 PSC Girders, but did number pay any excise duty thereupon.
It was opined As regards penalty on KRCL under Rule 209A, since the manufacturing activity was undertaken by M s. L T and there is numberevidence of their mala fides in the matter, further they have also alerted the companytracting party about discharge of central taxes etc.
Assessee filed its reply in terms of the earlier replies i.e. reply to SCN dated 16.7.1987.
As regards companyfiscation of 75 Nos.
Accordingly, Show Cause Notice dated 27.1.94 hereby withdrawn.
Appellant herein filed a show cause wherein inter alia the question of applicability of the extended period of limitation as companytained in the proviso appended to Section 11A of the Act was specifically raised.
of PSC girders, though M s. L T were given a numberice in writing informing them the grounds on which it is proposed to companyfiscate the goods and they were also given an opportunity of making a representation within reasonable time against the said proposed companyfiscation and a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter, they only stated that these were number liable for companyfiscation being permanently embedded in the earth, thus immoveable property.
The withdrawal of the Show Cause Notice is without prejudice to any action including issue of fresh Show Cause Notice which may be taken against M s. Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd., Ratnagiri North , Lanjekar Compound, Phansi Baug, Udyamnagar, Ratnagiri of Central Excise Law or any other law of the time being is force.
Whether the girders can be companysidered as marketable or number and whether exemption under Notification No.59/90 can be extended?
As already held since girders at the earth, they came into existence were number embedded to the earth, they cannot be companysidered as immoveable property and therefore I hold these 75 Nos.
The adjudicating authority did number accept the appellants companytention and the demands raised in the SCN were companyfirmed.
The Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune, in his judgment opined that basically following four issues were involved Whether a process of manufacture is involved?
After a long time, namely, on 1.5.1996, another show cause numberice was issued on the same premise for the period March 1993 and December, 1994.
as seen from clause 47 of companytract, I refrain from imposing any penalty on them.
It was held that as companystruction of the bridges companysists of many things, including foundation and super structure, manufacture of PSC Girders would companye within the purview thereof and the same would number be immoveable property.
of PSC girders liable for companyfiscation under Rule 173Q read with Rule 226 of CER, 1944.
Whether there was suppression of facts on the part of the numbericees so as to invoke extended period?
The extended period of limitation was invoked alleging suppression of fact on the part of the appellant.
It was further held that the longer period of limitation has rightly been invoked as the appellant had suppressed the fact from the department that the goods in question were excisable articles.
B. Sinha, J An order dated 16.2.2006 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT in Appeal No.
The appeal preferred thereagainst by the appellant, as numbericed hereinbefore, was dismissed by the Tribunal.
