2007 (11) TMI 485

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ant. Shri Kumaresan, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per : S.L. Peeran, Member (J)]. -  Both these appeals raises a common question of law and facts. Hence they are taken up together for disposal as per law. E/505/05 arises from OIA No. 38/05, dated 18-2-2005 by which the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the OIO No. 55/04, dated 22-4-04 passed by Dy. Commissioner of Centr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... had proceeded to classify all ducts as hollow profiles. These ducts were manufactured at site by the respondents engineers and labourers by using GI sheets etc. Both the authorities have taken a view that in the light of several judgments these ducts are classifiable under 73.08.50 at nil rate. This is under challenge. 2. The appeal No. 578/05 arises from OIA No. 33/05-C.E., dated 31-3-05....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....als are required to be dismissed as the issue is concluded by the Tribunal's ruling being upheld by the Apex Court. 3. Learned DR files a Larger Bench judgment rendered in the case of Mahendra & Mahendra - 2005 (190) E.L.T. 301 (Tri. - LB), wherein parts of iron and steel structures were held to be classifiable under 73.08. Learned Counsel distinguishes the judgment of Mahendra & Mahendra ....