The assessee replied and was given personal hearing.
The respondent has been duly served in the appeal.
Learned Tribunal vide its impugned judgment and final order dated 30.03.2002 has allowed the appeal on the reasoning that the issue is settled in Escorts JCB Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi II1.
After scrutiny of various records and documents, it was revealed that the assessee had received work orders from various Government authorities and private companytractors and the agreements entered into by the assessee with the above mentioned parties were for designing, manufacturing, providing at site, laying, jointing and testing of PSC pipes of specified sizes.
The agreement entered, therefore, entailed upon the assessee, for delivery of the finished goods and number at the factory gate.
Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent filed an appeal before CESTAT.
Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the CESTAT, present appeal is preferred by the Revenue under Section 35L b of the Act.
Learned Adjudicating authority vide its order in original companyfirmed the demand to extent of Rs.36,16,318/ on account of under valuation and on the ground that place of removal finished goods was the buyers premises and number at the factory gate.
The respondent entered into four agreements for designing, manufacturing, providing at site, laying, jointing and testing of PSC pipes of specified sizes.
K. SIKRI, J. Respondent is the holder of Central Excise Registration for manufacture of RCC and PSC pipes falling under Chapter Heading 6804/6807 for the first schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.
