Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cce, Chennai vs M/S. Titanium Equipment & Anode on 24 February, 2010
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI
E/485/2003
(Arising out of Order in Appeal No. 29/2003 M-III dated 28.03.2003, and Order in Appeal No. 11/2003 Departmental M-III dated 28.03.2003, passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai).
For approval and signature
Honble Ms. JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, Vice President
Honble Dr. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY, Technical Member
_________________________________________________________
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the :
order for Publication as per Rule 27 of the
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the :
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication
in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether the Honble Member wishes to see the fair :
copy of the Order.
4. Whether order is to be circulated to the :
Departmental Authorities? _________________________________________________________
CCE, Chennai : Appellant
Vs.
M/s. Titanium Equipment & Anode
Manufacturing Co. Lt.d. : Respondent
Appearance Ms. Indira Sisupal, JDR, for the appellant Shri K.S. Venkatagiri, Adv. , for the respondent CORAM Ms. JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, Vice President Dr. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY, Technical Member Date of hearing : 24.02.2010 Date of decision : 24.02.2010 Final ORDER No._____________ Per: Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Heard both sides. In this case, the authorities below both at the original level and at the appellate level have held the impugned goods namely Illuminated Sign Board not to be excisable goods leading to this appeal by the department. As regards M.S. Shells, the original authority has held the same to be dutiable whereas, the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the same comes into existence only at site and has therefore held the same to be non-excisable, leading to the departments appeal in this regard.
2. Shri K.S. Venkatagiri, Ld. Advocate appearing for the respondents states that it is a fact that M.S. Shells is partly fabricated by the job worker and the same comes into existence as a whole only at the site. He states that the illuminated sign board in question is not a movable sign board of the type described in Boards Circular dated 15.01.2002, to be excisable. In fact, the impugned sign board comes into existence after erection at site and the same is huge and therefore cannot be dismantled and sold as a movable property. He states that if it is dismantled and removed, it will no longer remain a sign board but will becomes scrap. He also shows a picture of the installation, which has been done near the Chennai Airport. He further states that the sign board sometimes remains vacant and sometimes different advertisements are put up by sticking the same on to the board.
3. Heard the Ld. DR, who supports the grounds of appeal and states that the impugned goods are marketable since the same has been sold along with the immovable property on which it has been erected.
4. After considering the arguments from both sides, including case records, we find that the illuminated sign board and M.S. Shells which are the disputed goods in this case come into existence as a result of fabrication and installation at site and the same cannot be dismantled and moved from place to place and marketed. Hence, we are of the opinion that the impugned order passed by the lower appellate authority requires no interference. Accordingly, we reject the appeal filed by the department.
5. The cross-objection filed by the respondents merely supports the impugned order-in-appeal. Hence, the same stands disposed of in view of the rejection of the appeal filed by the department.
(Operative part of the Order pronounced in the open Court on 24.02.10)
(Dr. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY) (JYOTI BALASUNDARAM)
TECHNICAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT
BB
2