2006 (3) TMI 150

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... by the Commissioner (Appeals) on 13th January 1993. Facts : 2.M/s. Binny Ltd., the appellant herein, a factory situated in Chennai, were engaged in the manufacture of Heavy Engineering Goods, Machinery and Components. The appellants received orders from M/s. Varian Chemicals and Distilleries for (i) construction of digester tank for biogas plant at site and (ii) fabrication and supply of roof structure and stainless steel lining for tanks. The roof structure manufactured by the company is excisable under T.I. 7308.90. The issue involved in the present appeal is whether roof structure is entitled to exemption under Notification No. 205/88 dated 25th May 1988. 3.The said roof structure was cleared by the appellant without payment of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Assistant Collector accordingly confirmed the demand of Rs. 6,60,157/- (BED) and Rs. 33,007.50 (SED). 6.The Collector (Appeals) vide O.A. No. 431/90(M) dated 31st December 1990 set aside the Assistant Collector's order and remanded the matter to the Assistant Collector for passing a fresh order after verifying the claims of the company. The Assistant Collector passed a fresh order dated 23rd October 1992 and held that the roof structure is neither a biogas plant nor a biogas engine. As the roof structure was placed on the concrete structure only at the site, the condition that such parts should be used within the factory was not satisfied. The Assistant Collector accordingly held that Notification No. 205/88 was not applicable to the a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....actures the biogas plants nor biogas engines. As per classification list filed by it, it has shown goods manufactured by it to be equipment of biogas plant. It would also not be covered by Entry 18 of the exemption Notification as well because the parts manufactured by the appellant were not consumed within the factory of production. The parts were taken out of the factory and consumed at the site. 11.The appellant is manufacturing roof structure which is used amongst other things for roofing the digester. Admittedly, the appellant is manufacturing roof structure which is taken out of the factory and used as a roof of the digester consisting of a large rectangular tank of civil structure which is covered by stainless steel top, supported....