JUDGMENT
Archana Wadhwa
1. The short point involved in the present appeals is as to whether the activity of fabrication and installation of the conveyor system undertaken by M/s Fenner India Ltd., New Delhi in the factory premises of M/s J.K. Corporation would amount to manufacture in terms of provisions of Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, so as to attract the duty of excise. Vide his impugned order, the Commissioner of Central Excise has held that the fabrication and erection of conveyor system results in emergence of a new and different product having a distinct name, character and use and such conveyor system is falling under chapter 84.28. On the other hand, the appellants’ contention is that the said conveyor system comes into existence o brick by brick basis and when it is fully erected, the same is already formally embedded to earth. The erection was done on a step by step basis on a firm foundation and it emerges as a conveyor system only after such fabrication at site. If dismantled, the same would emerge in salvageable parts and waste and scrap. It has been contended by Shri M.P. Debanth, ld. Advocate for M/s Fenner India Ltd. that the issue is no longer res integra in view of the following decisions:-
(a) 1993 (31) RLT 5 [Elecon Engineering v. CCE]
(b) 2000 (40) RLT 1 (SC) [Triveni Engineering & Industries Ltd. v. CCE].
(c) 2001 (43) RLT 733 [Fenner India Ltd. v. CCE, Nagpur]
(d) Final Order No.331/2001-B dated 28.6.2001 [CCE, Chandigarh v. Fenner India Ltd.]
(e) Final Order No.343/2001-B dated 4.7.2001 [CCE Chandigarh v. Fenner India Ltd.]
(f) 1997 (19) RLT 68 [Ludhiana Bottling v. CCE, Chandigarh]
(g) 1990 (46) ELT 562 [Tata Robins Fraser Ltd. v. CCE]
The demand of duty has also been assailed on the point of limitation.
2. After giving our careful consideration to the issue involved before us, we find that the issue is already decided in the appellants’ own case as reported in 2001 (43) RLT 733. It has been held that the conveyor system comes into existence as immovable property and hence is not excisable goods. The said decision has subsequently been followed by the Tribunal Final Order Mo. 343/01 and 331/01 when the appeal filed by the Revenue was rejected. Inasmuch as the issue is settled in the appellants’ own case, we find that no reason to differ with the views already taken by the Tribunal. As such, by following the ratio of the said decision, we allow all the appeals by setting aside the impugned order of the Commissioner.
Dictated and pronounced in the open Court.