Tribunal overturns order, grants relief to appellant based on manufacturing excisable goods definition.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the order and providing relief to the appellant. The decision was based on the finding that fabricating structures at the site constitutes manufacturing excisable goods, aligning with the Neo Structo Construction Ltd. ruling and rejecting the Dodsal (P.) Ltd. precedent cited by the Commissioner.

---

---

Issues involved:
1. Whether the appellant is liable to pay service tax for providing 'Erection, Commissioning, and Installation' services or engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods exempted from Excise duty.

Analysis:
1. The appellant contended that their activity of fabricating structures at the site for clients amounts to manufacturing excisable items exempted from Excise duty. The Commissioner rejected this plea, citing precedents like Dodsal (P.) Ltd. v. CCE 2006 (193) ELT 518 (Trib. - Mum.).
2. The appellant referred to a recent order in Neo Structo Construction Ltd. v. CCE&C [2010] 27 STT 1 (Ahd. - CESTAT), where a similar issue was discussed. The Bench, aligning with the Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. CCE 2005 (190) ELT 301 (Trib. - Delhi)(LB) decision, held that fabricating structures at the site amounts to manufacturing excisable goods. The earlier Dodsal (P.) Ltd. ruling was not accepted. The Revenue agreed that the Neo Structo Construction Ltd. decision applied to the current case.
3. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal and providing consequential relief to the appellant.

---