9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (8) TMI 118X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e aforesaid order is subject-matter of challenge being contrary to and wholly irreconcilable with the earlier order of the collector of Central Excise (Appeals) in petitioner's own case and another order in revision passed by the Government of India again, in the case of petitioner itself. It is further contended that the said order of the Superintendent is also contrary to the judgment of this Court in the case of OTIS Elevator v. State of Maharashtra, 24 STC 525. 4. The petitioner, as already stated above, carries on business of erection and installation of lifts in the buildings and maintenance thereof on the basis of lump sum contract price. The contracts entered into by the petitioner with its customers for the aforesaid purpos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... involves elaborate work and has to be correlated with and tailored to meet the needs and requirements of a particular building. It is, therefore, contended on behalf of the petitioner that the lift cannot be a ready-made assembled unit and its erection cannot be done in a routine manner. In their submission, the erection of a lift inside and into the building is neither an extension of the manufacturing activity at the premises of the customer nor is it a matter of merely assembling the components at the site. Once the lift is installed and commissioned in the building, it becomes integral part of the immovable property. The lift when installed in the building makes the building fit for occupation and becomes a permanent fixture of the buil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 995 (6) RLT 131 (S.C.) wherein the plant and machinery embedded to Earth, structures, erections and installations were held to be immovable property. The contention, therefore, sought to be advanced is that no excise duty can be levied on the composite contract involving erection and maintenance of the lifts forming part of the immovable property. 8. Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue tried to distinguish the aforesaid judgment cited by the petitioner, but could not take his submissions to the logical end. 9. Having heard the rival contentions and having examined all the citations referred to hereinabove, we are clearly of the opinion that the same shall apply to the facts of this case in full force an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t as a whole is not excisable and we have not dealt with the issue of excisability of the manufacture of parts of the lifts under Tariff Item 84.28 or Tariff item 84.31 of the Central Excise Tariff. Therefore, seeking particulars of commissioning and erection charges received by the petitioners from their customers does not arise at all. If there is any dispute regarding the excisability of the parts of the lifts under Tariff Item 84.28 or 84.31, the respondents may proceed in the matter in accordance with law, as this aspect of the matter will need investigation and adjudication based on questions of fact for which writ jurisdiction cannot be allowed to be invoked. In the result, petition is partly allowed. Accordingly, rule is made abso ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
