JUDGMENT - V.C. DAGA, J.:---The petitioner is a company engaged in the manufacture of lifts and in the business of erection and installation of elevators and escalators ("lifts" for short).

2. The petition is directed against the communication dated 20th August, 1987 passed by the Superintendent of Central Excise, respondent No. 1 seeking to assess excise duty on the basis of contract value recovered by petitioner from their customers.

3. The aforesaid order is subject matter of challenge being contrary to and wholly irreconcilable with the earlier order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) in petitioners own case and another order in revision passed by the Government of India again, in the case of petitioner itself. It is further contended that the said order of the Superintendent is also contrary to the judgment of this Court in the case of (Otis Elevator v. State of Maharashtra)1, 24 S.T.C. 525.

4. The petitioner, as already stated above, carries on business of erection and installation of lifts in the buildings and maintenance thereof on the basis of lump sum contract price. The contracts entered into by the petitioner with its customers for the aforesaid purpose are indivisible works contracts. Such contracts have been judicially examined, considered and regarded as indivisible contracts by the Division Bench of this Court in case of Otis Elevator v. State of Maharashtra (supra) holding that the works contracts involve high technical skill, knowledge and experience and mechanical and electrical as well as civil engineering including preparation of designs, drawings and compliance with engineering specifications and knowledge of lift codes, standards and safety requirements and other regulations prescribed by the Government and other authorities in this behalf. According to the petitioner, a large number of components are required to be put in the erection of lifts in addition to certain components which are manufactured in their factory. According to the petitioner, these several components by no stretch of imagination can be considered to be unfinished lift having essential character of a complete or finished lift.

5. The petitioners further contended that erection of lift cannot be carried out at the factory of the petitioner. The same can be done only inside the building structure as an integral part of the building in which the lift is to be installed. The erection and installation process commences, first time in the building site and is continued and completed within and into the building itself. Such work is a prolonged work extending over several months and sometimes for even more than a year. The erection of a lift involves elaborate work and has to be correlated with and tailored to meet the needs and requirements of a particular building. It is therefore contended on behalf of the petitioner that the lift cannot be a ready-made assembled unit and its erection cannot be done in a routine manner. In their submission, the erection of a lift inside and into the building is neither an extension of the manufacturing activity at the premises of the customer nor is it a matter of merely assembling the components at the site. Once the lift is installed and commissioned in the building, it becomes integral part of the immovable property. The lift when installed in the building makes the building fit for occupation and becomes a permanent fixture of the building itself and, consequently, it cannot be regarded as goods as contemplated under excise legislation, consequently, it cannot be within the sweep of Tariff Item No. 68 of the Excise Tariff Act.

6. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner brought to our notice that the issue as to whether or not lift fitted in the building forms part and parcel of the building and cannot be treated as the goods is fully covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in (Triveni Engineering Industries Ltd. v. C.C.E.)2, 2000(40) R.L.T. 1(S.C.), wherein the Apex Court clearly

Click Here to Read the rest of this document