TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 85X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dal, Member (J) And B Ravichandran, Member (T) For the Appellant : Shri Sameer Agarwal, Adv For the Respondent : Shri Govind Dixit, DR ORDER Per Ashok Jindal The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order demanding duty of ₹ 2,66,76,512/- along with interest and equivalent amount of penalty. The Revenue has also filed an application for early hearing of appeal. 2. As appeal has been listed today itself, therefore, application for early hearing is dismissed as infructuous. 3. The facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in manufacture, installing and commissioning digital telephone exchange. Appellant is a public sector undertaking and engaged in providing tele-communication services. Durin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6. Heard the parties. Considered the submission. 7. On similar issue in appellant's own case for Rohtak unit this Tribunal has observed as under: 6. We have considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. The activity of the appellant is described in para 24 of the order in original no, 13-14/COMMR/RP/06 dated 31.03.2006 according to which the appellant have purchased the switching equipment and other integral essential parts of the system such as power plant required for producing 48V DC power on which the system is operated, inverter for power break down etc., and assembled these equipments by their own staff at site into a digital local telephone exchange. As stated by Sh. HC Singla, an officer of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned the switching systems only even after installation and in our view no new commodity with distinct commercial identity or character or use has emerged. We find that the same view has been taken by the Tribunal in the case of Fuzitsu Indi Telecom Ltd. vs CCE Chandigarh (supra) wherein the Tribunal has held that the when bought out items of telephone exchanges were brought to the site of telephone exchange and assembled, no telephone exchange was manufactured requiring payment of duty. Same view has been taken by the Tribunal in the case of CCE Bhubaneswar vs Radiant Electronics (supra) and also in the case of BPL Mobile Telecommunications Ltd. vs CCE (Supra), though the Calcutta Bench of the Tribunal in the appellant's own case report ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
