2025 (8) TMI 1344

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....I whereby he set aside the demands and other actions proposed in five show cause notices SCN issued to M/s AGV Alfab Ltd. respondent. 2. The respondent is a construction contractor and during the relevant period carried out construction of curtain walls/structural glazing and aluminium cladding to various buildings, hotels, offices etc. The respondent did this in the following steps :- (a) The walls of the buildings are first mapped and marked for fixing clamps ; (b) The walls are drilled at regular intervals and clamps are fixed ; (c) Vertical aluminium sections are fixed to the clamps with bolts ; (d) Horizontal aluminium sections are fixed with clamps ; (e) On the aluminium sections, double....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed as AGV Alfab Limited versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi - II 2005 (186) E.L.T. 451 (Tri. - Del.) , held that the respondent was a civil contractor and the curtain wall is constructed on existing buildings connecting the pieces on site. It is too big to be manufactured in the factory and to be lifted and installed and once constructed, it cannot be removed or re-fitted as such. The respondent prepares aluminium sections by cutting aluminium angles by drilling holes, etc. in their own premises or at construction site and these activities do not bring in into existence any new commercial product. Accordingly, the appeal was decided in favour of the respondent herein. 7. The Commissioner further noted that this order of the CEST....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., learned counsel for the respondent and perused the records. 12. Learned authorized representative for the revenue asserted that the impugned order is not correct for the above three reasons in the appeal. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, asserts that the impugned order is correct and proper and calls for no interference. 13. We have considered the submissions. 14. The short issue to be decided is whether the curtain glass fixed by the respondent in the form of works contract on the walls of buildings can be charged to central excise duty. In the case of the respondent itself, for an earlier period, this Tribunal decided that no excisable goods came into existence in the process and aluminium sections and gla....