9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (12) TMI 388X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the Appellant. Smt. R. Bhagya Devi, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T)]. These appeals and stay petitions have been filed against OIO No. 9/2005, dated 20-5-2005, passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Pondicherry. 2. The facts of the case are as follows :- The first appellant, M/s. Ericsson India Pvt. Ltd., formerly M/s. Ericsson Communicat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... MSCs and BSCs have been installed or commissioned. Only BTS have been installed and commissioned within the jurisdiction of the respondent Commissioner. M/s. Aircel imported transmission apparatus namely MSC, BSC and BTS for purpose of setting up the communication network system on payment of appropriate customs duties. The first appellant procured certain materials indigenously and used the same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enalty of Rs. 30,00,000/- was imposed on M/s. Aircel under Rule 209A of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2001-2002. The appellants strongly challenge the impugned order and have come before us for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 3. Shri Aravind P. Datar, ld. Advocate appeared for the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ular Mobile Ltd. and RPG cellular services Ltd. It was further submitted that the appellants paid service tax on installation/commissioning and erection services rendered by them. The ld. Advocate relied on a number of case laws to show that the appellant has not manufactured Radio Telephony apparatus as held by the Commissioner. He said that the network as such is not marketable. 5. The ld. SDR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s system as a whole is marketable. The activity undertaken by the appellant is mainly installation and commissioning for which they have discharged service tax. In these circumstances, the appellants have prima facie a very strong case. Hence, we allow the application of the appellants for full waiver of duty and penalties demanded in the impugned order. In taking a decision, we have noted that in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
