2017 (6) TMI 466

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e, for Appellant Shri Mohammad Altaf, Assistant Commissioner (AR), for Respondent ORDER Per: Anil G. Shakkarwar The above said two appeals are involving the same issue but for different period. Therefore, they have taken together for decision. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are manufacturers of Paper based decorative laminates, Formaldehyde, Post form particl....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....July, 2008 to December, 2008 demanding duty of Rs. 26,245/-. The show cause notices issued on 25.04.2008 were adjudicated through Order-in-Original No.184-185/AC/HPR/2009 dated 12/06/2009 wherein demand was confirmed and equal penalty was imposed on appellant. Appellant preferred appeal before Commissioner (Appeals). Learned Commissioner (Appeals) decided the appeal through Order-in-Appeal No.17-C....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rd the parties. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the show cause notice clearly established that the installation charges were separately mentioned in the invoices or were recovered through issue of debit notes. He further submitted that the issue is no more resintegra in view of precedent decision of Principal Bench of his Tribunal in the case of Greysham & Company vs. Comm....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ory. Therefore, we find that the said clarification is not applicable in the present case. We find that the decision of Principal Bench of this Tribunal in the above referred case of Greysham & Company is squarely applicable in present case wherein it was held that installation of the Air Break Equipment has nothing to do with the manufacturer of the said equipments and hence the charges for insta....