2015 (1) TMI 1318

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... been filed against the Order-in-Appeal of the Commissioner (Appeals) who held that the respondent are not liable to pay duty on the goods manufactured by them. 3. The facts of the case are that the respondent allegedly provided aluminium doors and windows as a part of a contract, to M/s. DLF Universal Ltd., for their building site at Gurgaon. It was alleged that the respondent procured aluminium sections from various suppliers, sent them for powder coating on job work basis, then handed over the same to another person for fabrication and installation of doors and windows at site and glasses were subsequently fixed to the doors and windows by another person. According to the Revenue, the activities amounted to manufacture of doors and .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... f Mahavir Aluminium Ltd. v. CCE, New Delhi-III - 2003 (153) E.L.T. 65 (Tri.-Del.) and in the case of Lokhandwala Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE - 2005 (182) E.L.T. 188 (Tri.-Mum.) in support of his stand that doors and windows come into existence after they have been fixed to the structurals. 7. We have considered the rival contentions. At the outset, we find that the ground of appeal is vague on the main issues at hand. The appeal stresses more on who has manufactured the goods i.e. aluminium doors and windows and the fact that the goods were supplied to DLF by the respondent by raising final bills. The grounds of appeal have not taken into account or considered various judgments on the issue of excisabillity in respect of similar items - a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... mbedded into the structure. Thus while the parts of windows have come into existence at site, the windows themselves have been brought into being only after the frame is permanently fixed, what is permanently fixed is not goods as it becomes immovable and immovable goods are not excisable. Had the impugned order demanded duty on the parts of windows it could be sustained? However the impugned order demands duty on the full windows, which have come into existence after they have become immovable goods. The impugned order proceeds on a wrong footing that the appellant was manufacturing windows and not parts of windows. It is for this reason only the department seeks to add the value of the glass that is fitted into the windows. We observe tha .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X