TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (5) TMI 48
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al Handling Systems. The appellants were registered under Central Excise for manufacture of Material Handling System/Conveyor Equipment such as belt conveyors, vibrating screen, crushers, screw conveyors, bucket elevator, drag chain conveyors, etc. They were availing the benefit of exemption notifications cited supra. It is submitted that they had manufactured and cleared Material Handling Systems which aid in movement of materials from one point to another and it was considered as goods and ineligible for the benefit of the Notification No. 3/2001 in SI. No. 16 within the description of 'Agricultural, Forestry, Agro Industrial, Industrial, Municipal and Urban Waste Conversion Device Producing Energy'. The appellant's contention was that th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... dling Systems comes into existence only when they are erected in the premises of the customers and assumes it is an immovable property. He submits that this very issue was subject-matter of above noted judgments and therefore, it was not proper on the part of the Commissioner to have disregarded the judgments and held them as not eligible for the benefit of the notification. It is his submission that the Si. No. of the Notification referred to in the impugned order is independent of the issue of excisablility of the product. When the product itself is not excisable and being an immovable property, then in such a circumstance the question of going into the eligibility of the Notification with regard to non- conventional devices/systems does....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tured was immovable property and the ratio of the four above noted judgments would apply to the facts of this case, is sustainable. 5.1 In the case of McNally Bharat Engg., the Tribunal held that the Material Handling Equipment comes into existence when formally embedded in earth and the entire system emerges as immovable and formally attached to the foundation. The present case squarely falls under this ratio. 5.2 In the case of Fenner (India) Ltd. the Mumbai Bench also examined the issue and found that the conveyor system was assembled from components stage by stage at the place of assembly and it was also found that system was not capable of transporting as such to another other place without dismantling and latter system being brought....