TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1998 (4) TMI 289
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... [Order per : S.S. Kang, Member (J)]. - Appellant filed this appeal against the order-in-original dated 29-9-1998 passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi. 2. The appellants received an order for supply of passenger baggage trolleys in response to the tenders issued by the Airport Authority of India. A show cause notice was issued to the appellant alleging that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Act, 1944 and also held that the complete trolley was manufactured by the appellant and confirmed the demand of duty and also imposed the penalty. 3. Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that appellant received the order for supply of passenger baggage trolleys and the appellant only manufactured the steel frame. The appellant supplied these frames to M/s. Super Engineer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... only manufactured the steel frames which cannot be termed as steel furniture. The alternative plea of the appellant is that the passenger baggage trolley is also not termed as a steel furniture. He therefore, prays that appeal be allowed. 5. Heard Shri M. Jayaraman, JDR. 6. In this case the contention of the appellant is that they only manufactured steel frame and supply to M/s. Super....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tor that M/s. Super Engineering Works was not functioning. 9. This finding further finds support from the fact that in the tenders submitted to the Airport Authority, the appellant submitted that they will manufacture the trolleys. There was specific column in tender to mention the name and address of sub-contractor, and appellant were required to mention the specific part of trolley manufac....