1998 (6) TMI 216

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r : Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J)]. In this case demand of Rs. 27,55,480/- has been confirmed as duty on Aerial Ropeway Systems erected by the applicants herein at Naina Devi, Himachal Pradesh, under CET sub-heading 8428.90 and a penalty of Rs. 28,00,000/- has been imposed upon them. The applicants contend that the Ropeway System is immovable property and not goods within the meaning of the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rther submits that collection of parts by itself does not amount to manufacture as held by the Tribunal in the case of Tata Robins Fraser Ltd. reported in 1990 (46) E.L.T. 562 (Tribunal). They also relied upon Board s circular dated 21-4-1989 in support of the contention that mere bringing together parts and components at site is not to be regarded as manufacture. Lastly they submit that the deman .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X