2004 (11) TMI 166

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Member (J)]. - In this appeal, the Revenue have questioned the correctness of the impugned order-in-original of the Commissioner to the extent of dropping the duty demand in respect of Websols against the respondents. 2. The respondents are engaged in the construction of Flyovers and National Highways. They entered into three separate individual civil engineering contracts with the Government ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., 1994. In reply to the show cause notice, they disputed the excisability and marketability of these goods and further alleged that the demand was time barred. But the adjudicating authority rejected their pleas and confirmed the duty demand vide order dated 25-10-1994. But that order was challenged by them and the Tribunal set aside the same vide Final Order dated 16-12-1999 [2001 (134) E.L.T. 25....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e has come up in appeal which is now before us. The learned SDR has contended that neither the benefit of Notification No. 59/90 could be given to the respondents nor the websols manufactured by them could be said to be non-marketable and as such, the impugned order in this regard, deserves to be reversed. 6. On the other hand, the learned Counsel has reiterated the correctness of the impugned ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ured by the respondents during the period in dispute at the site allotted to them under the contract by the Government (PWD Department) and thereafter used in the construction work. Therefore, the benefit of the above said notification has been rightly allowed to the respondents and we do not find any illegality in the impugned order in this regard passed by the adjudicating authority. 9. Regar....