2010 (2) TMI 531

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... le item. Department’s view that goods marketable since sold with immovable property on which erected, rejected. - E/485/2003 - 232/2010 - Dated:- 24-2-2010 - Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President and Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Member (T) Ms. Indira Sisupal, JDR, for the Appellant. Shri K.S. Venkatagiri, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per : Chittaranjan Satapathy, Member ( .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... vable sign board of the type described in Board's Circular dated 15-1-2002, to be excisable. In fact, the impugned sign board comes into existence after erection at site and the same is huge and therefore cannot be dismantled and sold as a movable property. He states that if it is dismantled and removed, it will no longer remain a sign board but will become scrap. He also shows a picture of the in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he lower appellate authority requires no interference. Accordingly, we reject the appeal filed by the department. 5. The cross-objection filed by the respondents merely supports the impugned order-in-appeal. Hence, the same stands disposed off in view of the rejection of the appeal filed by the department. (Operative part of the Order pronounced in the open Court on 24-2-2010) - - TaxTM .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X