Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Asia Foundations and Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Asia Foundations and vs Commr. of C. Ex.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Aug 16, 1999
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/16512

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided On
Subject
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Asia Foundations and

Respondent

Commr. of C. Ex.

Legal References

Reported In
(1999)(114)ELT330Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

1. in its order on the stay application filed by the same applicant is before us (appln. e/stay-269/98 in appeal no. e/319/98) this tribunal had taken a prima facie view that girders cast for construction of bridges for the konkan railways were not liable to duty, for the reason that they came into existence fully between the spans of the bridge and hence were immovable property and also on the ground that the benefit of the notification 59/90 could be available to the girders if they were considered to be movable. this notification inter alia exempts the goods manufactured at site used in construction of building. there is however some doubt whether the bridge is a building within the meaning of the notification. however we note that the tribunal in its decision in pratibha industries & anr. v. c.c.e. has extended the benefit of the notification (e/1134/92 and e/1642/95) to storm water drains, although it must be admitted that the question as to whether that is building or not, was not considered in the application. in view of the earlier decision of the tribunal, we waive deposit of the duty demanded of rs. 28.54 lakhs and penalty of equal amount and stay their recovery.

Full Judgment

1. In its order on the stay application filed by the same applicant is before us (Appln. E/Stay-269/98 in Appeal No. E/319/98) this Tribunal had taken a prima facie view that girders cast for construction of bridges for the Konkan Railways were not liable to duty, for the reason that they came into existence fully between the spans of the bridge and hence were immovable property and also on the ground that the benefit of the Notification 59/90 could be available to the girders if they were considered to be movable. This notification inter alia exempts the goods manufactured at site used in construction of building. There is however some doubt whether the bridge is a building within the meaning of the notification. However we note that the Tribunal in its decision in Pratibha Industries & Anr. v. C.C.E. has extended the benefit of the Notification (E/1134/92 and E/1642/95) to storm water drains, although it must be admitted that the question as to whether that is building or not, was not considered in the application. In view of the earlier decision of the Tribunal, we waive deposit of the duty demanded of Rs. 28.54 lakhs and penalty of equal amount and stay their recovery.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial