Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.34 seconds)The Central Excise Act, 1944
The Municipal Corporation Of Greater ... vs The Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. on 27 November, 1990
3. Shri P.K. Sahu, Advocate, the learned Counsel for the Appellants, pleaded that launching truss is a steel structure fabricated at site and is site specific, that it is a sort of massive beam made of steel which is fabricated and assembled at site, that its mobility is very limited, that it is placed on two adjoining pillars to take the necessary load to carry pre-fabricated segments while placing the segments on the opposing longitudinal faces of the pier segments by minimizing unbalanced movement, that its classification under heading 8425 is totally wrong, as it is not a machine, and if at all it can be said to have been manufactured, it would be classifiable under sub-heading 73084000, that on account of its very limited mobility, it can not be said to be goods and hence it is not excisable, that the burden of proving its marketability is on the department, but no evidence in this regard has been produced, that in this regard he relies upon the judgements of the Apex Court in case of Triveni Engineering & Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE reported in 2000 (120) ELT 273 (SC) wherein it was held that since Turbo alternator can not be moved without dismantling into components, its installation or erection at site does not result in emergence of any excisable goods and in case of CCE Vs. Thyssenkrupp Industries India Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2006 (199) ELT A 128 (SC) wherein it was held that rail mounted stackers assembled at site having very limited mobility are not marketable and hence not excisable, that these judgements are squarely applicable to the facts of this case, that applying the criterion for goods in the Apex Courts judgement in case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Oil Corporation reported in 1991 Suppl (2) SCC-18, launching trusses cannot be called goods, that there is absolutely no finding in the impugned order as to whether the Launching Trusses are marketable and hence goods, that even if the launching trusses are treated as goods attracting duty under SH 73084000, since the same are fabricated at site and on account of their very limited mobility, the same have to be treated as used in construction work at site, the same would be covered by notification no.3/05-CE and would be fully exempt from duty, and that in view of the above, the impugned order is not correct.
Triveni Engineering & Industries Ltd vs Cce, Meerut-Ii on 16 November, 2010
The mix-up of the expression truss as a transitive verb and the use of the word truss as a noun denoting rigid frame-work in the engineering world is more than obvious and the error has unfortunately percolated in several subsequent decisions that have followed Aruna Industries (supra). For the foregoing reasons, we cannot and, therefore, do not subscribe to that view and hold that trusses, purlins, and similar parts of structures are commercial articles having distinct character and identity than the raw material used for fabricating them, in the field of structural engineering. As noted above, purlins are articles distinct from raw angles, and C and Z types of purlins are well known in the field of structural engineering manufactured as marketable commodities.
6.2 In view of the above, we hold that launching trusses are excisable goods chargeable to duty under SH 73084000 of the Central Excise Tariff.
M/S. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd vs Cce, Mangalore on 22 March, 2010
The Commissioner in his order does not discuss as to how a launching truss, which is a giant steel structure, is covered by 8425. On the other hand, in term of judgment of larger bench of the Tribunal in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Vs. CCE reported in 2005 (190) ELT 301 (Tribunal-LB) trusses are classifiable under heading no.73.08. Since a launching truss is after all a truss, the same would be correctly classifiable under sub-heading 73084000. As regards the marketability of launching trusses, this aspect has been discussed in detail in para 9.5, 9.6, 10, 10.1, 11 and 11.1 of the larger bench judgement which are reproduced below:-
Mahindra And Mahindra Ltd. vs Cce [Alongwith Appeal No. E/2691/91 ... on 18 November, 2005
4. Shri S.R. Meena, the learned Senior Departmental Representative defended the impugned order reiterating the findings of the Commissioner and emphasized on the findings of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in para 11 of its judgment in case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Vs. CCE, Aurangabad reported in 2005 (190) ELT 201 (Tribunal-LB) which is reproduced below:-
C.C.E., Rohtak vs M/S Surya Vinayak Industries Pvt. Ltd. . ... on 10 June, 2010
3. Shri P.K. Sahu, Advocate, the learned Counsel for the Appellants, pleaded that launching truss is a steel structure fabricated at site and is site specific, that it is a sort of massive beam made of steel which is fabricated and assembled at site, that its mobility is very limited, that it is placed on two adjoining pillars to take the necessary load to carry pre-fabricated segments while placing the segments on the opposing longitudinal faces of the pier segments by minimizing unbalanced movement, that its classification under heading 8425 is totally wrong, as it is not a machine, and if at all it can be said to have been manufactured, it would be classifiable under sub-heading 73084000, that on account of its very limited mobility, it can not be said to be goods and hence it is not excisable, that the burden of proving its marketability is on the department, but no evidence in this regard has been produced, that in this regard he relies upon the judgements of the Apex Court in case of Triveni Engineering & Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE reported in 2000 (120) ELT 273 (SC) wherein it was held that since Turbo alternator can not be moved without dismantling into components, its installation or erection at site does not result in emergence of any excisable goods and in case of CCE Vs. Thyssenkrupp Industries India Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2006 (199) ELT A 128 (SC) wherein it was held that rail mounted stackers assembled at site having very limited mobility are not marketable and hence not excisable, that these judgements are squarely applicable to the facts of this case, that applying the criterion for goods in the Apex Courts judgement in case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Oil Corporation reported in 1991 Suppl (2) SCC-18, launching trusses cannot be called goods, that there is absolutely no finding in the impugned order as to whether the Launching Trusses are marketable and hence goods, that even if the launching trusses are treated as goods attracting duty under SH 73084000, since the same are fabricated at site and on account of their very limited mobility, the same have to be treated as used in construction work at site, the same would be covered by notification no.3/05-CE and would be fully exempt from duty, and that in view of the above, the impugned order is not correct.
1