2005 (4) TMI 477

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ent. [Order per : Moheb Ali M., Member (T)]. The stay application seeking waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty arose out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai. In the impugned order the Commissioner held that the goods namely, work station and office furniture systems manufactured by M/s. Blow Plast Limited are classifiable under Chapter heading 94.03 of CETA; .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ries where such furniture is manufactured and in installing the same in the customers premises. Since duty has already been discharged on the furniture by the parent manufacturer no further duty can be charged on the same goods again. In support of his argument that duty has already been charged on the furniture in question he took us through the Assistant Commissioner order No. 108/97/VGP-1 date .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... that duty was already discharged on the goods that were being installed by the appellant is correct. The appellants contention that duty cannot be charged on the same goods twice appears to be prima facie right. We have perused the order of the Assistant Commissioner referred to above. We hold that the appellants have made out a strong prima facie case in their favour for waiver of pre-deposit of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X