Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2016 (7) TMI 799

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Ms. Changsen, Deputy Commissioner (AR) for the appellant. Shri M.S. Nagaraja, Advocate for the respondent ORDER This appeal is filed by Revenue against the order passed by Commissioner which dropped the duty demand, interest and penalty. 2. Brief facts:- 2.1. M/S. Hindustan Steel Works Constructions Ltd., (M/S. HSWCL) the respondent, is a Central PSU coming under the control of the Ministry of Steel Mines. The respondents are engaged in Civil, Structural and Construction engineering. The respondents had entered into a Works Contract dated 03/04/1984 with M/S. National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. (NTPC) for erection of Stage II of the Ramagundam Super Thermal Power .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he respondent at the site of NTPCL are not excisable goods classifiable under CTH 7308.90 and consequently duty liability does not arise. The Revenue has filed the present appeal against the above order. 3. The learned AR Ms.Changsen who appeared for the appellant argued that the Commissioner has erred in holding that the activity does not amount to manufacture. She relied upon the judgment laid in Mahindra Mahindra Ltd. vs. CCE [2005(190) ELT 301 (Tri. LB)] to canvass the position that the fabrication work undertaken by M/s. HSWCL / respondent undoubtedly amounts to manufacture and the goods so fabricated were clearly classifiable under the Heading 7308.90. 4. The respondent , M/S. HSWCL entered into a contract with NTPCL for the w .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... l records and heard both sides carefully. 7. In the first place, consistent view has been taken in a number of High Court and Tribunal judgment that prior to 01/03/1988 being the date on which the tariff item 7308 was brought into effect, the process of converting bare angle into prepared angle will not amount to manufacture. 8. We also find merit in the appellants' contention that even in case the department contends that steel structure fabricated at site under T I-68, it was incumbent on the department to have accepted exemption of goods manufactured at site, which is not a factory, by virtue of Notification No. 46/81-CE dt. 01/03/1981. It is also seen that the Board vide order No.58/1/2002 CX dt. 15/01/2002 on the subject of e .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... cated on the ground and thereafter were used in the designed structures which were erected by permanently fixing them in such structures. The relevant portion of the judgment reproduced below is noteworthy. 12. The question whether they would be included in the residuary sub-heading Other in sub-heading 7308.90 would obviously depend upon the fact whether they are prepared for use in structures and have acquired independent identity in their movable state before being permanently fixed in the structure like the items mentioned in the parenthesis while illustrating parts of structures. We have hereinabove, while referring to the demand of duty made from the appellants, referred to the nature of the parts of structures which were fir .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates