https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=370689 Excise duty liability on greenhouse/polyhouse activity could not be finally determined on the existing record because the factual distinction between manufacture at the factory and erection and commissioning at site remained unclear. The record also suggested possible overlap between excise and service tax treatment, since service tax had been discharged for erection and commissioning for the same period, but it was not clear whether that tax related to an independent service or to the same fabricated items assembled at site. The matter therefore required remand for denovo adjudication and factual verification before any conclusion on manufacture and tariff classification under Chapter sub-heading 9406 0019. en-us Mon, 29 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 22 Nov 2018 07:01:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=370689 Excise duty liability on greenhouse/polyhouse activity could not be finally determined on the existing record because the factual distinction between manufacture at the factory and erection and commissioning at site remained unclear. The record also suggested possible overlap between excise and service tax treatment, since service tax had been discharged for erection and commissioning for the same period, but it was not clear whether that tax related to an independent service or to the same fabricated items assembled at site. The matter therefore required remand for denovo adjudication and factual verification before any conclusion on manufacture and tariff classification under Chapter sub-heading 9406 0019. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 29 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=370689