Feedback   New User   Subscription   Demo   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

McCoy Architectural Systems Pvt. Ltd., Ajay Artreya Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai – V

2018 (2) TMI 792 - CESTAT MUMBAI

Manufacture - Appellants carried out fabrication activity across all parts of the country and offered complete structure and execution and installation of the structure - whether the activity amounts to manufacture? - Held that: - In the present case, the appellants have no workshop to carry out the fabrication like cutting, welding, grinding etc. The appellants gave the work to a sub-contractor who assembles structure at the customer site. The structure constructed at the customer’s site has no .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

sh Chandra, President And Shri C J Mathew, Member (Technical) Shri Gajendra Jain, Advocate for appellants Shri H.M. Dixit, Assistant Commissioner (AR) for the respondent Per: Justice Dr. Satish Chandra Both the appeals have been filed against Order-in-Original No: 396/25V/2007/COMMR/RH dated 15/11/2007. The period of dispute is April 2001 to March 2005. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the activity of fabrication of structure such as skylights, space frames, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nal has remanded the matter to the Commissioner vide order dated 18/07/2007. In consequence, the second round of litigation has generated. 4. He further submits that the Commissioner relied on its earlier order. He also submits that the appellants are not performing any activity of manufacturing of material at their premises. The materials are to be put in use at the customer s site. The customers place the formal order and appellant will have to engage the sub-contract to perform the task for f .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

. The perusal of the record shows that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of transformed structural materials. These products are manufactured by them out of duty paid material by cutting, punching, etc., of angles, bars and similar fabrication angles/rods, etc. In an identical case, CCE, Madurai v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (supra) referred by the Counsel, the Tribunal has taken the view that such an activity did not amount to manufacture. In that case also, structural materials w .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

upreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise v. Executive Engineer, Fabrication Workshop, MPSEB 2015 (324) ELT A196 (SC). Lastly he made a request that the impugned order may kindly be set aside. 6. On the other hand, Shri H.M. Dixit, Assistant Commissioner (AR) has relied on the impugned order. He has drawn attention to the para 8 of the impugned order where it was mentioned that there was no contract with the labour so the manufacturing activity is performed by the appellant. 7. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version