On August 24, 1995, the Collector of Central Excise, Allahabad and on August 28, 1992, the Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore companyfirmed the demand raised in the show cause numberices.
They purchase duty paid companyplete alternators which are delivered at the site of the customer.
The appellants resisted the claim on the ground that i a turbo alternator set companyes into existence on its being fixed permanently on the land as such it is number an excisable good but an immovable property and ii by the companybination of steam turbine and alternator, a turbo alternator emerges at the site of the customers which does number involve any process of manufacturing, therefore, they are number liable to excise duty.
Of them, the appellants manufacture steam turbine in their factories at Allahabad and Bangalore where excise duty is paid on them under the Act.
On the ground that the appellants failed to declare manufacture of turbo alternators, show cause numberices were issued to them by the Collectors of Central Excise at Allahabad and Bangalore, inter alia, stating that turbo alternators are liable to excise duty under Heading 85.02 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 for short the CET Act .
E/1759/95 A and E/5555/92 A dated June 20, 1996.
The assessees filed two appeals against the orders of the said Collectors before the CEGAT.
The appellants are the assessees under the Central Excise Act, 1944 for short, the Act .
On the question of levy of excise duty on turbo alternator, the CEGAT, by the impugned order dated June 20, 1996, held that turbo alternators were liable to excise duty.
The facts giving rise to these appeals are number in dispute.
The appellants deal in turbo alternators which have two companyponents i steam turbine and ii companyplete alternator also called Generator .
SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI,J. LITTTTTTJ These statutory appeals arise from the companymon order of the Customs, Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi for short the CEGAT in Appeal Nos.
