Tata Robins Fraser Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. these are three appeals filed by the appellants involving common issue and therefore, they are clubbed and are being disposed of by this common order.2. the facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellants m/s. tata robins fraser limited manufactured machinery items falling under tariff item 68 in their factory at jamshedpur. they undertake construction of projects on contract basis. these contracts include civil and structural work, supply of ma- chinery and equipment, their erection and installation etc. machinery and equipment required for the execution of their work are partly manufactured in their own factory at jamshedpur and partly procured in the market. they also get certain items manufactured in other factories as per specifications raw material supplied by them. for the execution of the contracts they had cleared machinery items from their factory at jamshedpur on payment of duty. according to the department, the goods falling under t.i. 68 which are cleared in knocked down condition to be assembled at site and over a period of time against a particular contract, clearances are assessable to duty on the value of the articles in completely assembled condition. the authority who adjudicated the proceedings observed that machinery items appears to have been manufactured at site out of the components partially obtained from the assessees work at jamshedpur which were finally assessed to duty and partially bought from the market. thus dutiability of the goods manufactured at site in such cases would have to be determined independent of the duty already paid on the components, whether the same was brought from the manufacturers works or from the market. if some goods have actually been manufactured at site their duty liability would have to be fixed independently on its value irrespective of the duty already paid on the inputs.3. arguing for the appellants, shri s.k. bagaria, learned advocate submitted that for the earlier period on the same cause of action, the party had come before the tribunal and the tribunal has decided the issue in favour of the party holding that "project" by itself being an immovable property is not 'goods' and hence is not liable to excise duty. tribunal has also held that merely collecting various component parts at site, partly by manufacturer from one's own factory, partly getting them manufactured from other factories and partly buying some components from market, does not amount to manufacture of entire project. he referred to the earlier order in their own case as reported in 1990 (46) e.l.t. 562 (tribunal). he also submitted that appeal filed by the department against the order passed by the tribunal has been dismissed by the supreme court upholding the view taken by the tribunal and the same is reported at volume no. 84 e.l.t. at page a-108. he referred to the relevant show cause notices issued in these three cases which are similar to the earlier show cause notices which were the subject matter of dispute in the above order passed by the tribunal which has been upheld by the apex court.4.shri sanjeev srivastava, learned jdr appearing for the revenue fairly conceded that issue involved in this case has already been settled by the above decision referred to above as it was rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants.5. we have carefully considered the matter. since the issue has already been decided by the tribunal in the very party's case that project by itself being an immovable property is not 'goods' and this view was upheld by the supreme court, following the above decision, we accept the contentions of the appellant and, in the result, all these three appeals are allowed with consequential relief, if any.

Judgment:
1. These are three appeals filed by the appellants involving common issue and therefore, they are clubbed and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellants M/s. Tata Robins Fraser Limited manufactured machinery items falling under Tariff Item 68 in their factory at Jamshedpur. They undertake construction of projects on contract basis. These contracts include civil and structural work, supply of ma- chinery and equipment, their erection and installation etc. Machinery and equipment required for the execution of their work are partly manufactured in their own factory at Jamshedpur and partly procured in the market. They also get certain items manufactured in other factories as per specifications raw material supplied by them. For the execution of the contracts they had cleared machinery items from their factory at Jamshedpur on payment of duty. According to the department, the goods falling under T.I. 68 which are cleared in knocked down condition to be assembled at site and over a period of time against a particular contract, clearances are assessable to duty on the value of the articles in completely assembled condition. The Authority who adjudicated the proceedings observed that machinery items appears to have been manufactured at site out of the components partially obtained from the assessees work at Jamshedpur which were finally assessed to duty and partially bought from the market. Thus dutiability of the goods manufactured at site in such cases would have to be determined independent of the duty already paid on the components, whether the same was brought from the manufacturers works or from the market. If some goods have actually been manufactured at site their duty liability would have to be fixed independently on its value irrespective of the duty already paid on the inputs.

3. Arguing for the appellants, Shri S.K. Bagaria, learned Advocate submitted that for the earlier period on the same cause of action, the party had come before the Tribunal and the Tribunal has decided the issue in favour of the party holding that "Project" by itself being an immovable property is not 'goods' and hence is not liable to excise duty. Tribunal has also held that merely collecting various component parts at site, partly by manufacturer from one's own factory, partly getting them manufactured from other factories and partly buying some components from market, does not amount to manufacture of entire project. He referred to the earlier order in their own case as reported in 1990 (46) E.L.T. 562 (Tribunal). He also submitted that appeal filed by the department against the order passed by the Tribunal has been dismissed by the Supreme Court upholding the view taken by the Tribunal and the same is reported at Volume No. 84 E.L.T. at page A-108. He referred to the relevant show cause notices issued in these three cases which are similar to the earlier show cause notices which were the subject matter of dispute in the above order passed by the Tribunal which has been upheld by the Apex Court.

4.Shri Sanjeev Srivastava, learned JDR appearing for the Revenue fairly conceded that issue involved in this case has already been settled by the above decision referred to above as it was rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the appellants.

5. We have carefully considered the matter. Since the issue has already been decided by the Tribunal in the very party's case that Project by itself being an immovable property is not 'goods' and this view was upheld by the Supreme Court, following the above decision, we accept the contentions of the appellant and, in the result, all these three appeals are allowed with consequential relief, if any.