TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (1) TMI 483
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....DR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. - The appellants have been placed with orders for installation and erection of hydraulic lift. For the said purposes, they are manufacturing some of the components in their own factory and some of the parts are being obtained by them from the other manufacturer. During the relevant period for the purposes of present appeal, the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....padhyay, ld. Consultant appearing for the appellants submits that the issue is no more res integra and Chennai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Commr. of Central Excise, Chennai v. Kone Elevators India Ltd. reported in [2001 (138) E.L.T. 635 (T) = 2001 (45) RLT 676 (CEGAT-Che.)] has held, in identical circumstances that the clearance of some of the parts from the factory and bringing of the bo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ike to reproduce para 8 of the said judgment :- "8. On careful consideration of the submissions and examination of the records, we notice that the Commissioner has examined in great length the entire material and has clearly concluded that what was removed were only parts and they cannot be treated as lift for the reason that lift would come into existence only after they are installed along....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....el of immovable property. Therefore, all the citations referred to which are noted above would clearly apply to the facts of this case, and item being immovable property cannot be subject to excise under the tariff heading claimed by the revenue." We do not find any justifiable reason to take a view different than one taken by the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal. Accordingly, following the ratio of....