1999 (6) TMI 339

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s is the same i.e. confirmation of duty on erection of weigh bridges in the respective premises of the appellant s factory. The appellants had contended that the weigh bridge had been received by them on Proforma Invoice issued by M/s. Avery India Ltd. which had been duly duty paid. Appellants had contended further that what was erected in their factory was an immovable property and not movable property come into existence and hence the question of value addition and demand of duty over and again of such value addition does not arise. 3. Both the contentions were negated by the Addl. Collector and confirmed duty demands on the ground that the weigh bridge does not become complete unless they are duly erected on foundation, tested, verifie .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... by the Supreme Court in the case of Metal Engg. Works Ltd. (supra) and have taken a view that the case of Narne Tulaman Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd. did not address itself the question of immovable property and hence the judgment is not binding on subsequent cases. He submits that the Addl. Collector himself has taken a view in para 10.6 that the weigh bridge come into existence at the factory site on the basis of erection. He submits that the factual position being clear, the judgment of the Tribunal rendered in the case of Silical Metallurgic Ltd. as reported in 1999 (106) E.L.T. 439 holding that erection of electrify arc furnace as an immovable property is required to be applied. He submits that this judgment of Silical Metallurgic Ltd. has s .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... laman Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd. (supra) which had come to the conclusion that the weigh bridges erected at the site was dutiable. Later Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Metal Engg. Works Ltd. opined that Narne Tulaman Mfrs. case did not address the question as to whether erection of weigh bridge at the site of manufacture is immovable property or not. Therefore the question has been left open for consideration on the basis of facts. In this case, appellants have contended that goods in CKD condition had been received from M/s. Avery India Ltd. on payment of duty and what was erected at their place was only immovable property. This is a question of fact which requires verification in the light of allegations made by the department in the S .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X