TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2000 (12) TMI 438
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt. S/Shri R.L. Saxena, Advocate, S.D. Gohil, Consultant, for the Respondents. [Order per : Gowri Shankar, Member (T)]. - The question for consideration in each of these appeals is the same. It is whether fabrication of parts which were used to construct structures of metal which were immovable amounts to manufacture requiring payment of duty. 2. In Appeal E/1033/96 notice was issued to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....earth, and therefore immovable. This finding is challenged in the appeal on the ground that the Collector should have held the fabrication of the elements to be manufactured. 5. While the Departmental Representative explains the contentions in the appeal, after hearing counsel for the respondents, we have no room for doubt about the correctness of the Collector's conclusion. The structural e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly dismiss the appeal. 6. In the other Appeal E/1033/96, however, a different position emerges. Unlike in the earlier case where the elements were assembled at site to create immovable structure, the structure was assembled into a specific sub-assemblies to this. The statement of M.L. Mandalia, the resident engineer of M/s. Nila Constructions, who was the contractor for M/s. Petrofils confir....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he example of floor tiles which are intended to be fitted to the floor of a structure. On the other aspect, the respondent might perhaps have a case. It appears from the fact that the goods were obviously tailor-made to suit the particular requirement of Petrofils. Can it be said that they are marketable? We are unable to accept the contention because they were intended for one person they are not....