TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (9) TMI 456
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ellant. Shri T.K. Kar, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. -  Vide his impugned Order, the Commissioner has confirmed the demand of duty of Rs. 27,83,922.00 (Rupees twenty-seven lakhs eighty-three thousand nine hundred and twenty-two) against the appellants, along with the imposition of personal penalty of an identical amount, on the ground that the app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt assembly and erecting plant and machinery at different sites. 3. During the course of adjudication, the appellants contended that they are undertaking different turn-key projects primarily for different departments through tender process. The said process includes drawing, designing and commissioning at site. Some of the parts of the said projects were manufactured in the appellants' fa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nfirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, when S.L.P. filed by Union of India against the said decision, was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as reported in 1998 (101) E.L.T. A139. 4. Shri S.K. Roychowdhury, learned Advocate for the appellants submits that though the above decision was specifically relied upon by the appellants before the Commissioner during adjudication proceedings and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g levy of Excise Duty. The High Court has also held that the materials fabricated according to such specific requirements are not excisable goods since they are not capable of being sold in the market. The S.L.P. filed against the said judgment of the Karnataka High Court stands dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 6. We also note that while delivering the said decision, the Hon'ble Hig....