- (1.) In this appeal the appellant has impugned the final order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (for short 'CEGAT") dated 28-12-1995 dismissing its appeal against the order of the Collector of Central Excise, Raipur, confirming the demand of duty on Hydraulic Mudguns and Tap Hole Drilling Machines, and imposing a penalty of Rs. 8 lakhs for suppressing the fact of such manufacture and removal of excisable goods from the Department of Central Excise, failure to obtain Central Excise Licence and its failure to maintain statutory records and to file the required returns.
(2.) The facts of the case are not in dispute. The appellant-Company pursuant to the acceptance of its tender, entered into an agreement with M/s. SAIL, Bhilai Steel Plant for design, supply, supervision of erection and commissioning of four sets of Hydraulic Mudguns and Tap Hole Drilling Machines required for blast furnace Nos. 4 and 6 of the Bhilai Steel Plant. For this purpose, it imported several components and also manufactured some of the components at their factory in Marai Malai Nagar, Chennai. These components were transported to the site at Bhilai where the manufacture and commissioning of the aforesaid machines took place. It is undisputed that duty was paid in respect of the components manufactured at its workshop in Chennai, but no duty was paid on manufacture of the aforesaid Mudguns and Drilling Machines which were erected and commissioned on site.
(3.) A show cause notice dated 3-4-1992 was issued to the appellant demanding Central and Special Excise Duty amounting to Rs. 8961525/- on the total assessable value of the aforesaid machines of Rs. 85347855/-. The notice also proposed initiation of penal action against the appellant. The appellant filed a detailed reply explaining the processes undertaken by it for the manufacture/erection and commissioning of the equipments, the purpose of the equipments so erected, their size and weight etc. After considering the plea of the appellant, the Collector of Central Excise, who was the Adjudicating Authority, concluded that the processes undertaken by the appellant resulted in the manufacture of two distinct equipments having there own name, character and use and which were specifically included in the Central Excise Tariff, and were therefore excisable goods and had to discharge duty liability. It reject the plea of the appellant that the Mudguns and Drilling Machines were immovable property and hence not excisable. The Adjudicating Authority relied upon the decision of this Court in Narne Tulaman Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd. v. Controller of Central Excise, 1988 (38) ENT 566 (SC), where the issue related to the manufacture of weigh bridge, and held that the principles laid down therein squarely applied, particularly having regard to the similarity of facts. Accordingly, it confirmed the demand and imposed a penalty of Rs. 8 lakhs by order dated 27-5-1993.;