9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 278X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cture was erected and glass was fixed - Applicant contended that aluminum assembly of Glazing Systems, the glazing is of glass which comes into existence at site and it is immovable property - Held that:- There are divergent views on the issue as decided in case of MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA LTD.(2005 (11) TMI 103 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI). Find merit in the contention of the applicant that extended period ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies. The demand is confirmed in respect of the Aluminum Sliding Windows, Aluminum Doors Glazing Systems classifiable under Chapter 76 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. 3. The contention of applicant is that the applicants are manufacturing and clearing Aluminum Sliding Windows, Aluminum Doors from the factory and the clearance of these items is within the limit prescribed under the small ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taken into consideration the applicant had already paid more than 50% of the demand. The contention of applicant is that major portion of the demand is time barred as the demand is made in view of the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Mahindra Mahindra Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Aurangabad, Chandigarh reported 2005 (190) E.L.T. 30 (Tri. LB) prior to this decision there were divergent v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s fully applicable to the facts of the present case. 5. We find that issue regarding excisability of structures came before the Tribunal in the case of Mahindra Mahindra Ltd. (supra) prior to this decision there are divergent views on the issue. Therefore prima facie we find merit in the contention of the applicant that extended period of limitation is not available to the Revenue. Now, taken ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
