TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1434X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... come up before the Tribunal in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs. CCE, Raipur [2018 (2) TMI 1384 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], where it was held that the towers were used by the assessee-appellants for only transmission of the signals without carrying out any further business activity, amount not includible - decided in favor of appellant. Decided partly in favor of appellant and part matter on remand. - Excise Appeal No.52775 of 2016 - A/50140/2018-EX[DB] - Dated:- 9-1-2018 - Mr. (Dr.) Satish Chandra, President And Mr. V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) Sh. Rajesh Chhibber, Advocate - for the appellant Sh. S. K. Bansal, AR - for the Respondent ORDER Per: (Dr.) Satish Chandra The present appeal is filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hen it is so, then we set aside the impugned order in this regard and remand the matter to the original authority to decide the shortage of the raw material. 6. Regarding the second and main issue pertaining to demand of the duty on supplied items, it was submitted that appellant has not manufactured these products. It may be mentioned that for the purpose, the appellant had manufactured only microwave tower. The dispute relates to the valuation of the goods which were not manufactured by the assessee, but consumed for the purpose of erection of the tower. In the absence of any specific rule being applicable for the purpose of valuation, residuary clause under the said Rules and particularly which is comprised under Rule 11 is sought to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oods are not consumed in the production or manufacture of other articles, the question of ascertaining the value by referring to the cost of the product or manufacture of such goods would not arise. 5. From the record, we find that for the subsequent period, in the identical facts and circumstances of the case, the Commissioner in his order No.357-CE/RPR/APPL/RPR/2015/2596 dated 21.10.2016 has granted relief to the assessee-appellants. 6. It may be mentioned that the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of PCC Pole Factory Vs. CCE, 2003 (158) ELT 429 (SC), allowed the claim of the assessee-appellants where PCC Poles were used for transmission of the electric energy. There was no further activity of manufacture and no business was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
