9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (12) TMI 98X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Counsel, in support of this petition and Mr. Godhamgoankar, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 2.The facts in this petition are almost similar to Writ Petition No. 324/1990 [2003 (156) E.L.T. 467 (Bom.)] which we have decided today. The petitioner herein is a Civil Construction Company and it was entrusted with the works contract of setting up a factory shed for M/s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The respondent No. 2, who was Collector of Central Excise, at the relevant time relied upon those statements. He also relied upon the fact that the sales tax was paid by the petitioner when the various components were moved from their processing site on the property of Bajaj Auto Ltd., to the place where the final shed was erected. He, therefore, confirmed the demand notice. Being aggrievd by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court viz. Quality Steel Tubes (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, U.P. - 1995 (75) E.L.T. 17 (S.C.); Union of India and Others v. J.G. Glass Industries Ltd. and Others - 1998 (97) E.L.T. 5 (S.C.) = (1998) 2 Supreme Court Cases 32, and a very recent judgment of Division Bench of this Court. In the case of Sunflag Iron and Steel Company Limited, Nagpur v. Additional Collector of Central Excise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .The submissions of both the Counsel have been dealt with in our Judgment rendered today in Writ Petition No. 324/1990 [2003 (156) E.L.T. 467 (Bom.)]. For those very reasons, we accept the submissions of Mr. Kanade and hold that the activity of the petitioners on the site of Bajaj Auto Ltd., did not amount to manufacture of excisable goods within the meaning of Section 3 of the Central Excise Act, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
