2011 (2) TMI 484

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., Advocate, for the Respondent. [Judgment per : N. Kumar, J.]. -  The Revenue has preferred this appeal challenging the order passed by the Tribunal [2008 (223) E.L.T. 454 (Tribunal)] holding that no duty is leviable in respect of grinding room/enclosure as it is part and parcel of immovable property. The assessee did not dispute the duty and liability on the manufacture of grinding equ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....uthority merely applied the principles of M/s. Sirpur Paper Mills v. CCE - 1998 (97) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) decision wherein the aspect pertaining to machinery being fixed to the earth was considered. It was held that machinery or an movable item, and the prayer of the assessee that as it is fixed to the earth it should be treated as immovable property was not accepted. However, relying on the judgment i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....msp;Whether without reducing the duty amount and without legal sanction of any Rule or Section, the CESTAT was empowered to reduce the penalty amount imposed by the adjudicating authority?" 3. In this appeal the Revenue is not challenging the finding of the Tribunal that the grinding room/enclosure is part and parcel of the immovable property and no duty is leviable thereon. Therefore, the....