9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 462X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on behalf of the appellant. He submitted that the final order was challenged by filing an appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, vide Civil Appeal no. 2440/2018. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide their order dated 12.03.2018 ordered as under. "1. It is urged by the learned counsels for the appellants that the learned Tribunal was plainly wrong in recording the finding that the Blinds in question are movable properties and can be removed/dismantled and consequentially imposing penalty. If that is so, appellants may approach the learned Tribunal for rectification. 2. The appeals are disposed of in the above terms with liberty to the appellants to approach this court once again, if necessary. We make it clear that we have not express ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ally made for each customer cannot be considered as marketable. (c). He referred to para 13 of The Final Order in which the Tribunal has distinguished the case laws cited by the appellant in a single line, without discussing any distinguishing features. (d). He further submitted that the Tribunal has not given any detailed findings regarding the imposition of penalty. (e). The ld. DR Sh. V.K. Jain opposed the ROM. He submitted that all the arguments advanced were considered by the Tribunal before passing the Final Order. He also relied on the following decisions : i Union of India V. Sonic Electrochem (P) Ltd. reported in 2002 (145) ELT 274 (SC). ii CCE, Delhi-I V. Crystal Corporation, reported in 2017 (216) ELT 513 (S.C.) iii Om M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : "These blinds are in the nature of curtains and cannot be said to become immovable properties when they are mounted on the wall. The roller blinds can be unbolted and removed at any time which renders these blinds to be in the nature of movable rather than immovable property". 9. We have also carefully considered the decisions of the apex court in the two cases cited by the appellant as well as the CBEC order 15.01.2002 issued under Section 37 B ibid. These materials deal with an entirely different issue; dealing with what constitutes immovable property on which no excise duty can be demanded. The present case deals with the products-"blinds"-which are manufactured in the factory, but subsequently assembled and installed at the customer& ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
