TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (1) TMI 354
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....BSC) and Base Transceiver Station (BTS) manufactured through M/s. Indian Telecom Industries Limited (ITI). (b) MTNL placed purchase orders with M/s. ITI and in pursuance of the same the latter undertook survey, design, supply of equipment, installation, testing, commissioning and handing over the systems to MTNL on turnkey basis. To enable undertaking the above work, M/s. ITI in turn placed purchase order on M/s. Lucas Technologies World Services for supply, including customs clearance, transportation and insurance till commissioning and handing over of the systems to MTNL on behalf of ITI. 4. The Commissioner has taken the view that BTS and BSC assembled at site for MTNL by ITI are movable goods which arise o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Excise cited supra, but has not given reasoning why he has not followed the same. 8. It is noticed that in respect of identical items the Tribunal has in the case of BPL Communications Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise held that BTS/BSC are not movable goods and are not excisable. The operative portions of the findings are reproduced below : "In view of the aforesaid judgment, the so-called BTS/BSC site erected, installed and commissioned by the contractors of the company cannot be construed as marketable goods manufactured by the appellants since they cannot go to the market as such. BTS/BSC site are not marketable for another reason also. For installation of every BTS/BSC, License from WPC/SACFA a wing of Department of Telec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of installing and commissioning cell site cannot be an activity of either of manufacture and no marketable goods arise. None of the requirements of Section 3 of Central Excise Act fulfilled. We find force in these submission. 2.2 In the view of the finding arrived that the said subsystem sites are not goods manufactured freely marketable nor the appellants a manufacturer, we do not propose to go into the alternate plea of eligibility to benefit under Notification 67/95-C.E. as capital goods. The plea is attractive but finds no need to be decided in these cases. Similarly the plea of time bar & interest is not gone into since we find no duty demand could be effected in this case sites BTS/BSC not being marketable. We also do not find a....