Case: Commnr. Of Central Excise, Ahmedabad Vs. Solid &amp; Correct Engg. Works

to the earth on the site of the sugar factory could be treated as goods within the meaning of Central Excise Act, 1944. This Court on facts noted that mono vertical crystallisers are fixed on a solid RCC slab having a load bearing capacity of about 30 tonnes per sq. mt. and are assembled at site with bottom plates, tank coils, drive frames, supports, plates, distance places, cutters, cutter supports, tank ribs, distance plate angles, water tanks, coil extension pipes, loose bend angles, coil supports, railing stands, intermediate platforms, drive frame railings and flats, oil trough, worm wheels, shafts, housing, stirrer arms and support channels, pipes, floats, heaters, ladders, platforms, etc. The Court noted that the mono vertical crystallisers have to be assembled, erected and attached to the earth on a foundation at the site of the sugar factory and are incapable of being sold to consumers in the market as it is without anything more. Relying upon the decision of this Court in Quality Steel Tubes case (supra), the erection and installation of mono vertical crystallisers was held not dutiable under the Excise Act. This Court observed that the Tribunal ought to have remembered that mono vertical crystallisers had, apart from assembly, to be erected and attached by foundation to the earth and, therefore, were not, in any event marketable as they were. This decision also, in our opinion, does not lend any support to the case of the assessee in these appeals as we are not dealing with the case of a machine like mono vertical crystallisers which is permanently embedded in the structure of a sugar factory as was the position in the Mittal Engineering Works case (supra). The plants with which we are dealing are entirely over ground and are not assimilated in any structure. They are simply fixed to the foundation with the help of nuts and bolts in order to provide stability from vibrations during the operation. 32. So also in T.T.G. Industries Ltd. V. CCE, Raipur 2004 (167) ELT 501 (SC), the machinery was erected at the site by the assessee on a specially made concrete platform at a level of 25 ft. height. Considering the weight and volume of the machine and the processes involved in its erection and installation, this Court held that the same was immovable property which could not be shifted without dismantling the same. 33. It is noteworthy that in none of the cases relied upon by the assessee referred to above was there any element of installation of the machine for a given period of time as is the position in the instant case. The machines in question were by their very nature intended to be fixed permanently to the structures which were embedded in the earth. The structures were also custom made for the fixing of such machines without which the same could not become functional. The machines thus becoming a part and parcel of the structures in which they were fitted were no longer moveable goods. It was in those peculiar circumstances that the installation and erection of machines at site were held to be by this Court, to be immovable property that ceased to remain moveable or marketable as they were at the time of their purchase. Once such a machine is fixed, embedded or assimilated in a permanent structure, the movable character of the machine becomes extinct. The same cannot thereafter be treated as moveable so as to be dutiable under the Excise Act. But cases in which there is no assimilation of the machine with the structure permanently, would stand on a different footing. In the instant case all that has been said by the assessee is that the machine is fixed by nuts and bolts to a foundation not because the intention was to permanently attach it to the earth but because a foundation was necessary to provide a wobble free operation to the machine. An attachment of this kind without the necessary intent of making the same permanent cannot, in our opinion, constitute permanent fixing, embedding or attachment in the sense that would make the machine a part and parcel of the earth permanently. In that view of the matter we see no difficulty in holding that the plants in question were not immovable property so as to be immune from the levy of excise duty.34. Our answer to question no.1 is accordingly in the affirmative.Re: Question No.235. The Tribunal, as noticed in the earlier part of this order, has taken the view that the respondents-manufacturing units were entitled to the benefit of exemption under Notification No.1/93 as amended from time to time as the use of brand name Solidmec for the plants or the components manufactured by such units did not disentitle the said units from claiming the benefit of the exemption having regard to the fact that the size of the sticker giving the brand name of the manufacturing units was bigger than that of Solidmec, the marketing company. Mr. Bagaria learned senior counsel for the respondent fairly conceded that the reasoning given by the Tribunal based on the size of the sticker was not legally sustainable. He, however, urged that since the manufacturing units had also raised some other defences including one on the ground of limitation, even if the order passed by the Tribunal was set aside, the matter may have to go back to the Tribunal to enable it to examine the said alternative contentions. Mr. Malhotra did not have any serious objection to this course being followed. He urged and, in our opinion rightly so, that since the Tribunals view on the question of exemption was unsustainable the order passed by the Tribunal has to be set aside and the matter remitted back for a fresh disposal qua the said units by reference to the other contentions urged on behalf of the units which the Tribunal has not examined. In that view of the matter our answer to question No.2 is in the negative.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]2. It is evident from the above that any machinery which is used for mixing is dutiable. That Asphalt Drum/Hot Mix Plant is a machinery meant for mixing etc. was not disputed before us.It is nobodys case that the attachment of the plant to the foundation is meant for permanent beneficial enjoyment of either the foundation or the land in which the same is imbedded.The courts in this country have applied the test whether the annexation is with the object of permanent beneficial enjoyment of the land or building. Machinery for metal-shaping and electro-plating which was attached by bolts to special concrete bases and could not be easily removed, was not treated to be a part of structure or the soil beneath it, as the attachment was not for more beneficial enjoyment of either the soil or concrete. Attachment in order to qualify the expression attached to the earth, must be for the beneficial attachment of that to which it is attached. Doors, windows and shutters of a house are attached to the house, which is imbedded in the earth. They are attached to the house which is imbedded in the earth for the beneficial enjoyment of the house. They have no separate existence from the house. Articles attached that do not form part of the house such as window blinds, and sashes, and ornamental articles such as glasses and tapestry fixed by tenant, are not affixtures.24. Applying the above tests to the case at hand, we have no difficulty in holding that the manufacture of the plants in question do not constitute annexation hence cannot be termed as immovable property for the following reasons:(i) The plants in question are not per se immovable property.(ii) Such plants cannot be said to be "attached to the earth" within the meaning of that expression as defined in Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act.(iii) The fixing of the plants to a foundation is meant only to give stability to the plant and keep its operation vibration free.(iv) The setting up of the plant itself is not intended to be permanent at a given place. The plant can be moved and is indeed moved after the road construction or repair project for which it is set up is completed.Applying the above test to the case at hand, the plants in question were neither attached to earth within the meaning of Section 3(26) of the General Clauses Act nor was there any intention of permanently fastening the same to anything attached to thedo not see any comparison between the erection and installation of a tube mill which involved a comprehensive process of installing slitting line, tube rolling plant, welding plant, testing equipment and galvanizing etc., referred to in the decision of this Court with the setting up of a hot mix plant as in this case. As observed by this Court in Triveni Engineering & Industries case (supra), the facts and circumstances of each case shall have to be examined for determining not only the factum of fastening/attachment to the earth but also the intention behind thedecision also, in our opinion, does not lend any support to the case of the assessee in these appeals as we are not dealing with the case of a machine like mono vertical crystallisers which is permanently embedded in the structure of a sugar factory as was the position in the Mittal Engineering Works case (supra). The plants with which we are dealing are entirely over ground and are not assimilated in any structure. They are simply fixed to the foundation with the help of nuts and bolts in order to provide stability from vibrations during the operation.It is noteworthy that in none of the cases relied upon by the assessee referred to above was there any element of installation of the machine for a given period of time as is the position in the instant case. The machines in question were by their very nature intended to be fixed permanently to the structures which were embedded in the earth. The structures were also custom made for the fixing of such machines without which the same could not become functional. The machines thus becoming a part and parcel of the structures in which they were fitted were no longer moveable goods. It was in those peculiar circumstances that the installation and erection of machines at site were held to be by this Court, to be immovable property that ceased to remain moveable or marketable as they were at the time of their purchase. Once such a machine is fixed, embedded or assimilated in a permanent structure, the movable character of the machine becomes extinct. The same cannot thereafter be treated as moveable so as to be dutiable under the Excise Act. But cases in which there is no assimilation of the machine with the structure permanently, would stand on a different footing. In the instant case all that has been said by the assessee is that the machine is fixed by nuts and bolts to a foundation not because the intention was to permanently attach it to the earth but because a foundation was necessary to provide a wobble free operation to the machine. An attachment of this kind without the necessary intent of making the same permanent cannot, in our opinion, constitute permanent fixing, embedding or attachment in the sense that would make the machine a part and parcel of the earth permanently. In that view of the matter we see no difficulty in holding that the plants in question were not immovable property so as to be immune from the levy of excise duty.34. Our answer to question no.1 is accordingly in the affirmative.Re: Question No.235. The Tribunal, as noticed in the earlier part of this order, has taken the view that the respondents-manufacturing units were entitled to the benefit of exemption under Notification No.1/93 as amended from time to time as the use of brand name Solidmec for the plants or the components manufactured by such units did not disentitle the said units from claiming the benefit of the exemption having regard to the fact that the size of the sticker giving the brand name of the manufacturing units was bigger than that of Solidmec, the marketing company. Mr.Bagaria learned senior counsel for the respondent fairly conceded that the reasoning given by the Tribunal based on the size of the sticker was not legally sustainable. He, however, urged that since the manufacturing units had also raised some other defences including one on the ground of limitation, even if the order passed by the Tribunal was set aside, the matter may have to go back to the Tribunal to enable it to examine the said alternative contentions. Mr. Malhotra did not have any serious objection to this course being followed.He urged and, in our opinion rightly so, that since the Tribunals view on the question of exemption was unsustainable the order passed by the Tribunal has to be set aside and the matter remitted back for a fresh disposal qua the said units by reference to the other contentions urged on behalf of the units which the Tribunal has not examined. In that view of the matter our answer to question No.2 is in the negative.