9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (9) TMI 43X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a, Member (Judicial) and Mr. B.S.V. Murthy, Member (Technical) Shri Durgesh Nadkarni, for the Appellant. Shri Sameer Chitkara, for the Respondent. [Order per: Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)] - The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of machinery, for processing of Tea falling under heading 8419.10 of CETA, 1985. The same being used in dimensions and being heavy, were cleared by the appellant in an un-assembled condition on payment of duty on a single day, but in different lots, loaded in different trucks. In as much as the machinery was being cleared in an un-assembled condition, the same required erection and commissioning at the site of the customer. This installation, erection and commissioning is being done a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that if the services rendered is based upon knowledge of engineering, then it automatically comes within the purview of the definition of Consulting Engineer's service. Their services also relate to the Discipline of Engineering and fall within the category of supervision of commissioning and initial operations. Thus, they fulfill all essential ingredients of Consulting Engineers. Therefore, the services provided by the appellants of supervision of installation, commissioning and erection fall within the scope and ambit of Consulting Engineering Services as defined under Section 65 of Finance Act, 1994." 3. After hearing both sides, we find that the issue is no more res-integra. Tribunal in the case of CCE Cochin Vs. BPL Telecom (P) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty. Second show cause notice on same facts, could not be taken as suppression of facts and demand is required to be held as barred by limitation. We note that the issue stand covered by decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of M/s Nizam Sugar Factory 2006 (197) ELT 465 (SC), as also by another decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of M/s ECE Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE New Delhi 2004 (164) ELT 236 (SC). Otherwise also, it cannot be said that Revenue was not aware of such activities of the appellant, when the appellant was a registered unit with the Central Excise department and clearing the goods on payment of duty. 5. In view of the above, we set aside the impugned order and allow both the appeals with consequential relief ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
