9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (3) TMI 677X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the Respondent. [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. After examining the records, we find that the Commissioner has demanded duty of over Rs. 2.00 crores from the appellant for the period 2003-2008 in respect of Pneumatic Conveying System. It appears from the records that some of the components for such system was manufactured in their own factory and brought to the customer s site. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has also claimed support from the Supreme Court s judgment in CCE, Indore v. Virdi Brothers - 2007 (207) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.). On the other hand, Ld. Jt. CDR has endeavoured to distinguish the present case from the cases cited by Ld. Counsel. It is submitted that the erection of a plant by assembling components at site has been recognized as constituting manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Centr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... judgment in the case of CCE, Delhi v. Frick India Ltd. - 2007 (216) E.L.T. 497 (S.C.). 2. After giving careful consideration to the submissions, we note that, admittedly, the manufactured and bought-out items were used in the assembly of Pneumatic Conveying System at the customer s site. The job was done in terms of works contract entered into between the assessee and their customer. The system ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... endered on 1-3-2007. On the other hand, the apex Court s judgement in the case of Virdi Brothers (supra), which has been heavily relied upon by Ld. Counsel, was rendered in 2006. Ld. Counsel has pointed out that, in Virdi Brothers case, the Board s Circular dated 15-1-2002 was relied on with approval and, therefore, the guidelines laid down by the Board would determine the issue arising in the pre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... view of the matter, we have to hold that the appellants have not been able to make out a clean case for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery. They have, at best, an arguable case, which requires to be argued out at the final hearing of the case. In the absence of evidence of financial hardships and having regard to the arguable character of the case, we refrain from asking for full deposit. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
