2017 (8) TMI 1402

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Mukhopadhyay, Suptd.(AR) for the Appellant (s) Shri Alok Arora, Advocate for the Respondent (s) ORDER Per Dr. Satish Chandra 1. The present appeal has been filed against the Order-in-Original No. CCE/BBSR-II/No.29-Commr./2005 dated 26.09.2005. 2. The period of dispute is from May, 2004 to February, 2005. 3. The brief facts of the case are that during the period under considerat....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... before the Tribunal in the following cases: (i) Singhal Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Raipur [2016(341) ELT 372 (Tri.-Del.)] (ii) Ultratech Cement Ltd. vs. CCE, Jaipur-I [2017-TIOL-141-CESTAT-DEL] (iii) Mangalam Cement Ltd. vs. CCE, Jaipur [2017-TIOL-141-CESTAT-DEL] In the case of Mangalam Cement Ltd. vs. CCE, jaipur (supra) it was observed by the Tribunal as under : We find that ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ctural steel items have been used for the fabrication of support structures for capital goods. The appellants have argued that the various capital goods, such as kiln, material handling conveyor system, furnace etc. cannot be suspended in mid air. They will need to be suitably supported to facilitate smooth functioning of such machines. It is obvious that the structural items have been suitably wo....