2004 (8) TMI 172

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s been directed by the appellants against the impugned order-in-original vide which the adjudicating authority has confirmed the duty demand with penalties, as detailed therein, on them. 2. Ld. Counsel has, at the outset, has contended that no duty demand could be raised against the appellants, being not manufacturer of 9 tanks for storage of petroleum products and 2 tanks for storage of water, i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... orage of petroleum products and 2 tanks for storage of water as detailed in the show cause notice during May, 1995 to August, 1996 from the construction Company known as M/s. Dee Gee Saws & Metal Works, Lucknow. Although these tanks were fabricated by that company inside the depot premises on the land owned by the appellants and as per the directions and specifications provided by the appellants, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rer are dutiable or not as according to the appellants these being permanently embedded to earth and not marketable, could not be termed as 'goods' for the purpose of levy of central excise duty, is not required to be gone into. Moreover, this question can be raised by the manufacturer, who in the present case is the above named Company, as and when duty liability is sought to be enforced against .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X