Full Judgment
2. Shri B.L. Narsimhan, learned Advocate, submitted that the Commissioner under the impugned Order No. 6/2002 dated 28.2.2002 has adjudicated a number of show cause notices issued to M/s. Ion Exchange out of which a number of show cause notices had already been adjudicated by him under Adjudication Orders No. 628/2001 dated 29.11.2001, 9/2001 dated 29.1.2001, 10/2001, dated 20.12.2001, 1 to 14/2001 dated 31.12.2001, 1 & 2/2002 dated 12.1.2002 and 4 & 5/2002 dated 25.2.2002; that in the present matter he has confirmed a demand of Central Excise duty against the Appellants besides imposing an equivalent amount of penalty under Rule 173Q and also imposed a penalty on M/s. Ion Exchange India Ltd. holding that the water treatment plant is chargeable to Excise duty. The learned Advocate, further, submitted that the appeals filed by M/s. Ion Exchange and others including the appeal against the impugned Order have come up for consideration before the Chennai Bench of this Tribunal; that the Tribunal vide final Order as reported in 2002 (53) RLT 90 (CEGAT-Chennai) has held that water treatment plant assembled as site is not excisable goods. He also mentioned that the similar view has been expressed by the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Madras v. Chemtech Water Conditioner P. Ltd. (Tribunal-Delhi) following the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Triveni Engg. and Inds.
Ltd. v. CCE 3. The impugned Order has already been the subject matter of Tribunal's decision in the case of Ion Exchange Inds. Ltd. v. CCE, Chennai 2002 (53) RLT 90 wherein it has been held that water treatment plant is not excisable goods. Fallowing the ratio of the said decision as well as the decision in the case of Chemtech Water Conditioner P. Ltd. we set aside the impugned Order and allow the appeal.