TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (2) TMI 774
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppellate Tribunal ("the Tribunal"), directing the appellant to deposit a further sum of Rs.50 lacs over and above Rs.28 ,43,326 /- already deposited out of total duty demand of Rs.4.48 crores along with interest and equivalent penalty. The aforesaid deposit is directed under the proviso to Section 35F of the Act for the purpose of hearing the appellant's appeal from the order dated 8 December 2011 of Commissioner of Central Excise, on merits. 3) The appellant is inter alia engaged in the activity of Aluminum Assembly of glazing of glass system (system). The revenue contends that it is an activity of manufacture. The appellant contends that the system comes into existence as an immovable property at site and therefore not goods. Thus not li....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g the system is done at site and the appellant had already paid service tax as works contract service. In view of the above the appellant had not taken any credit in respect of the duty paid on material used in the making of the system which comes into existence at site as immovable property. Further attention was drawn to the decisions of this Court in Ganon Dunkerly & Co. vs. Union of India, 2003 (156) ELT 467 ( Bom .) , Simplex Concrete Pipes vs. Union of India 2003 (157) ELT 394 ( Bom .) and Shapoorji Pallonji Vs. Union of India 2005 (192) ELT 92 ( Bom .) wherein it has been held that immovable property erected at site by using angles, beams and sections and cutting them to size so as to use it in making an immovable property cannot be ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appellant would have to be considered at the time of final hearing to determine to the extent to which the same is applicable to the appellant's case. Besides, the extent to which the finding of the adjudication authority is factually sustainable would also be appropriately gone into at the stage of final hearing. 8) The appellant also submitted that in any case credit to the extent of an amount of Rs.28.42 lacs which they could have taken in respect of duty paid on the inputs but not taken as according to them the system was not excisable goods. In view of the above, in any event, it was submitted that the deposit should be reduced by the above amounts of Rs.28.42 lacs . During the hearing on a specific query we were informed that the am....