TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (7) TMI 342
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ar Durrez Ahmed, J (Oral)]. - This is an appeal filed on behalf of the revenue under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against the order passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) dated 8-12-2005 [2006 (195) E.L.T. 211 (Tribunal)]. The issue sought to be raised in the present appeal relates to the question as to whether the as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that there is no manufacture falling under Section 2(f) of the said Act at the hands of the assessee and, therefore, no duty can be claimed on any activity indulged upon by them. While coming to this conclusion, the Tribunal took note of the fact that in the assessment proceedings with regard to Kemp & Co., the department had taken the stand that Kemp & Co. were not clearing parts but were manufa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e differential duty of Rs. 75.5 lacs for past clearances commencing from 1-8-96. 5. The Tribunal considered the question as to whether the assessee was required to pay duty on the activity of assembling and installing furniture at its customers' premises out of the components of OFS/WS purchased from Kemp & Co. The Tribunal noted that the Assistant Commissioner in the case of Kemp & Co's assessme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ocked down condition and that it cannot be said that the Kemp & Co. had manufactured the parts and not the complete system. The Tribunal held as under:- "It is a well settled law that the clearance in parts or in components in unassembled condition for the ease of transportation has to be held as clearance of a complete system, whatever it may be. As such, clearance from the factory of Kemp & Co.....