INDIAN HUME PIPES CO. LTD. Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal at the instance of the assessee the challenge is against the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore dated 24.4.2002. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Pre -stressed cement concrete pipes falling under heading 68.07 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They have entered into an agreement with Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board (for short, TWAD) for execution of full project including manufacture, supply and laying of concrete pipes, M.S. pipes and fittings, walls and earth work of excavation and refilling etc. It is alleged by the Department that the appellant had not declared the actual place of removal in their declaration filed under Sub -rule (3A) of Rule 173C of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 with an intention to evade payment of excise duty. It was the case of the appellant that the contracts were for supply of pipes, laying and testing at site on turnkey basis and that the contract contained the cost worked out in respect of manufacture and supply of PSC pipes at work site, laying and testing of pipes including the amount incurred and realised for the freight element in the assessable value. The assessee took the stand that the consolidated composite agreement entered into with TWAD Board contained separate rate for each item of work, viz., manufacturing, testing, supply and delivery of pre -stressed concrete pipes, supply and delivery of rubber rings, for jointing, fabrication, manufacture, supply and delivery of pumping mains, mild steel fittings, tail pieces, supply and delivery of cast iron valves etc. Show cause notice dated 30.10.2001 was issued to the appellant demanding differential duty of Rs. 40,32,550 under proviso to Section 11A of the Act for the period from 1.10.96 to 9.9.2001. There was also a proposal for imposition of penalty under Section 11AC of the Act and Rules 25 and 27 of the Central Excise Rules, 2001 and erstwhile Rules 173 and 210 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

(2.) Apart from the contention on merit that the sale in respect of pre -stressed concrete pipes took place at the factory gate and therefore, freight is not to be added for arriving at the assessable value, the appellant contended that the demand was barred by limitation. The Commissioner confirmed the demand by invoking extended period of limitation on the ground that the appellant had mis -declared the place of removal in the declaration filed under Rule 173C(3A).

(3.) Before us the Learned Counsel for the appellant made detailed submissions on merits relying on the decisions of this Tribunal as well as Supreme Court. He also submitted that the Commissioner has committed an error in rejecting the contention on the question of limitation.