https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244180 Interference with a Tribunal's pre-deposit direction was declined where the deposit was confined to the demand falling within the normal limitation period, while the extended-period demand had already been excluded. The assessee's reliance on authorities concerning immovable property assembled at site did not, at that interlocutory stage, displace the revenue's case that the goods were manufactured in a factory and cleared in dismantled form. A further plea based on possible Cenvat credit was also not accepted at that stage because the assessee had not taken such credit while opting for the works contract composition scheme, and allowing it could affect that benefit. The merits were left for final adjudication. en-us Wed, 12 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 09 Sep 2014 12:39:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244180 Interference with a Tribunal's pre-deposit direction was declined where the deposit was confined to the demand falling within the normal limitation period, while the extended-period demand had already been excluded. The assessee's reliance on authorities concerning immovable property assembled at site did not, at that interlocutory stage, displace the revenue's case that the goods were manufactured in a factory and cleared in dismantled form. A further plea based on possible Cenvat credit was also not accepted at that stage because the assessee had not taken such credit while opting for the works contract composition scheme, and allowing it could affect that benefit. The merits were left for final adjudication. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 12 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244180