Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. this is an appeal filed by revenue with reference to the impugned order (original) no. 11/97, dated 23-9-97 passed by the commissioner of customs & central excise, hyderabad.2. whether 'dust collector system' is excisable or not is an issue to be considered in this case. it was submitted by the party that the said system is permanently attached to earth and become part of immovable party.3. the department has come in appeal on the ground that the 'dust collector system' by dismantling can be shifted to any other place on civil foundation's and accordingly the same is movable property. in support of this contention, the departmental representative drew our attention to the statement of facts in the show cause notice.4. on the other hand, the counsel appearing for the respondent drew our attention to the affidavit filed by the party stating that the said system cannot be dismantled unless it is broken or damaged and accordingly it cannot be considered as excisable goods. it was also pointed out by him that contents of the affidavit has not been rebutted by the revenue.5. on considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on going through the impugned order, we find that the point at issue has been properly analysed by the commissioner while deciding the issue in favour of the assessee. accordingly we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. in the result the appeal is hereby dismissed.

Judgment:
1. This is an appeal filed by Revenue with reference to the impugned Order (Original) No. 11/97, dated 23-9-97 passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Hyderabad.

2. Whether 'Dust Collector System' is excisable or not is an issue to be considered in this case. It was submitted by the party that the said system is permanently attached to earth and become part of immovable party.

3. The Department has come in appeal on the ground that the 'Dust Collector System' by dismantling can be shifted to any other place on civil foundation's and accordingly the same is movable property. In support of this contention, the Departmental Representative drew our attention to the Statement of facts in the Show Cause Notice.

4. On the other hand, the Counsel appearing for the Respondent drew our attention to the affidavit filed by the party stating that the said system cannot be dismantled unless it is broken or damaged and accordingly it cannot be considered as excisable goods. It was also pointed out by him that contents of the affidavit has not been rebutted by the Revenue.

5. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on going through the impugned order, we find that the point at issue has been properly analysed by the Commissioner while deciding the issue in favour of the assessee. Accordingly we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. In the result the appeal is hereby dismissed.