COIMBATORE AERO BASED CONTROL Vs. C.C.E.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises from Order -in -Original dated 17 -7 -1996 passed by Collector of Central Excise, Coimbatore confirming duty demand of a sum of Rs. 22,18,132/ - towards duty involved on the industrial fan said to have been manufactured by the appellants during the period January, 1992 to December 1996 under Rule 9(2) of Central Excise Rules read with Section 11A(2) of Central Excise Act, 1944. He has also imposed a penalty of like sum under Section 11 AC and Rules 9(2) and 173Q of C.E. Rules. Besides directed the appellants to pay the interest under Section 11AB of the Act on the duty confirmed.

(2.) THE brief facts are that the officers attached to Hqrs. Preventive unit, Coimbatore visited the appellants' premises on 6 -2 -1996 and ascertained that they were basically contractors who undertook supply and erection of humidification plants; that they procure orders for supply of components of humidification plants and erection thereof; that they buy materials like impellers, casings, motors, grills, ducts, diffusers from various parties, take them to the site of their customer and erect/assemble them to make the humidification plant; that during the course of making such humidification plant, they assemble industrial fans out of the impellers, castings and motors procured by them at the site of their customers. After taking the statement of Mr. J. Andrews Vinu Mohan, Managing Director and others, it was alleged in the show cause notice that the appellants had manufactured "Industrial fans" at site and had not paid duty on such industrial fans manufactured and erected at site, hence demands were raised from the year 1990 on the allegation that appellants had not brought this fact to the notice of the department and had not followed any Central Excise procedure, had not paid any duty on such fans manufactured at site. Hence, they have suppressed the fact of manufacture of excisable goods with the intention to evade payment of duty and hence larger period was invoked demanding duty to the extent confirmed in the case.

(3.) THE appellants' reply was that they had not manufactured industrial fan. Their plea was: -