1999 (7) TMI 395

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... DR, for the Respondents. [Order per : Gowri Shankar, Member (T)]. The appellant manufactures, on order, mechanical handling equipment. It is not in dispute that the equipment which is the subject matter of the proceeding in these two appeals is installed at the customer s site by using, apart from items manufactured and cleared from the appellant s factory, goods manufactured by other pe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... lation of equipment at site. Since that equipment is not excisable or liable to duty, (being immovable property) it would follow that charges relating to the coming into existence of that equipment are also not excisable. The departmental representative contends that these are liable to duty. 3. The Asst. Collector, in his order does not furnish any reasoning for dropping the demand ordered by h .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s. They consisted of standard equipment manufactured and cleared by the appellant by way of sale for which price list has been filed and of items specially fabricated for use of a particular product; if this contention is correct, no further duty would be payable on the first set of items. Duty would be payable on the second set of items, on the cost of manufacture plus its profit that the appella .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X