9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (2) TMI 216X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appellant. None, for the Respondents. [Order per Dr. S. L. Peeran Member (J) (Oral)] - Revenue is aggrieved with Order-in-Appeal No.56/2005 CE dated 17.6.2005 by which the Commissioner (A) has held that the ducts which are used for installation of heat ventilation and Air Conditioning systems are not goods and they become part and parcel of the immoveable property. The findings recorded are reproduced herein below. FINDINGS: I have carefully gone through the records of the case and also the submissions made in the Memorandum of Appeal and the submissions made at the time of Personal Hearing. The main issue before me for decision in the present appeal is whether ducts are dutiable or not. Appellants undertake installation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ducts undergo a set of different processes. A item can be subjected to excise duty only when it passes the twin test of manufacture and marketability. The appellants carry out the process of cutting, bending and finishing the Ducts at the site of the customer. Hence the Ducts come into existence at site only. Further it has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Man Structurals Limited reported in 2001 (130) E.L.T. 40 (S.C.) that while determining the excisability of the products the process of manufacture and its marketability is to be considered. It is clear from the facts of the case that these Ducts are designed to suit the location of the Air Conditioning system in each customer's case separately. These Ducts are not article ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on from the Order-in-Original that records that the goods have come in the form of hollow profiles and only when they are fixed to Air Conditioning System they become immoveable property. He prays for reversal of the order. 4. The respondents are not present despite several notices served on them. The Commissioner has served notice on the respondents and the proof of service has been produced. Hence, the matter is taken up for decision on merits. 5. We have considered the judgment of Mahindra Mahindra Vs. CCE (supra) and find that the ruling pertains to parts of iron / steel structures. The said goods are different from the goods in question. The Commissioner (A) has analyzed that the ducts came into existence and also noted t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
