9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 774X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the system was not excisable goods. - Tribunal ordered pre-deposit of ₹ 1.23 crores after granting benefit of extended period of limitation. Held that:- During the hearing on a specific query we were informed that the amount of ₹ 28.42 lacs paid on inputs has not been taken as cenvat credit. This was to avail benefit of a composition scheme in respect of service tax payable on works contract has as one of its conditions not to take cenvat credit on inputs. Therefore, permitting the appellant to take cenvat credit would mean they are disentitled to the benefit of service tax composition scheme which has already been availed. Therefore, the credit of ₹ 28.42 lacs cannot at this stage be taken into consideration for the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... minum Assembly of glazing of glass system (system). The revenue contends that it is an activity of manufacture. The appellant contends that the system comes into existence as an immovable property at site and therefore not goods. Thus not liable to excise duty. However, by an order dated 8 December 2011 the Commissioner of Central Excise negatived the appellant's contention and held that system is chargeable to excise duty. Consequently, a duty demand of Rs.4.48 crores along with interest and equivalent penalty therein was confirmed for the period 2004-05 to 2009-10. 4) Being aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal to the Tribunal and also application under the proviso to Section 35F of the Act for dispensing with pre-deposit of the duty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rji Pallonji Vs. Union of India 2005 (192) ELT 92 ( Bom .) wherein it has been held that immovable property erected at site by using angles, beams and sections and cutting them to size so as to use it in making an immovable property cannot be subjected to tax. In view of the above, particularly the decisions of this Court, it is submitted that the requirement of deposit be dispensed with completely and the appeal be heard on merits. 6) As against the above, Mr. Mishra learned Counsel appearing for the revenue invited our attention to the adjudication order wherein a finding has been recorded that a system is manufactured by the appellant and is removed in a disassembled condition to site so as to get it fixed at site as an immovable prope ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ording to them the system was not excisable goods. In view of the above, in any event, it was submitted that the deposit should be reduced by the above amounts of Rs.28.42 lacs . During the hearing on a specific query we were informed that the amount of Rs.28.42 lacs paid on inputs has not been taken as cenvat credit. This was to avail benefit of a composition scheme in respect of service tax payable on works contract has as one of its conditions not to take cenvat credit on inputs. Therefore, permitting the appellant to take cenvat credit would mean they are disentitled to the benefit of service tax composition scheme which has already been availed. Therefore, the credit of Rs.28.42 lacs cannot at this stage be taken into consideration for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
