9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (8) TMI 390X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the tank and it was first fabricated by placing it on cement platform meant for fixing the tank. The top cone was lifted using chain and pulleys from the platform and thereafter the shell, the cylindrical part of tank was welded to the lifted top cone. Further the other shells were welded to the lifted shell one after the other. The base plate was welded to the bottom most shell and the channel rings were also fixed and welded to give extra firmness. From the above, it is clear that the assessee had first manufactured the parts of the tank viz. Cone, shells, base plate and channel rings. All these were welded together and then fixed to the ground on the cement platform. There is no doubt that when the various parts of the tank were wel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s have the essential character of storage tanks and complete tanks have been removed in an unassembled condition, these are rightly classifiable and chargeable to duty under Heading 73.09. 2. Learned Advocate has relied upon the decision in the case of J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. CCE as reported in 2000 (124) E.L.T. 643 (T) = 1999 (33) RLT 129, wherein the Tribunal had held as under : - Chimney shell - made by cutting and bending MS Sheets, the shells are bolted with foundation and with each other to make chimney which comes into existence as immovable property - no evidence about marketability of shells adduced by the department - not marketable and not excisable. Excisability - Fuel tank - made by embedding steel bars into civil foundati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he facts of their case there can be no excisable stainless steel have come into existence. Therefore, he submits that their appeal should be allowed. 3. Learned DR reiterates the Commissioner's findings. 4. We have considered these submissions and find that - (a) The Commissioner in the impugned order, as extracted above, has admitted that the immovable property has come into existence at the site. When the Commissioner has come to this conclusion, we fail to understand how thereafter he has applied the Rule 2(a) to hold all the parts taken together to be steel tanks classifiable under heading 73.09, as Rule 2(a) would not be applicable in the facts of this case as held by the Tribunal in the case of Nikhil Equipments Pvt. Ltd. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
