2006 (5) TMI 399 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order-in-appeal upholding duty confirmation and penalty imposition, manufacturing activity determination, invocation of extended period for limitation, financial hardship consideration.

Manufacturing Activity Determination:
The case involved a challenge to an order confirming duty and imposing penalties on the appellant for allegedly engaging in manufacturing decorative lamps without paying duty. The appellant argued they only assembled purchased lamp parts without involving in manufacturing. Legal precedents were cited, such as the Madras High Court decision in T.S. Cycles of India case, to support the contention that mere assembly of parts does not constitute manufacturing. However, the tribunal found that the appellant procured various components, assembled them into distinct marketable items, and engaged in a manufacturing process. The tribunal differentiated this case from the cited precedents where goods were sent in Completely Knocked Down (CKD) condition, which was not the situation here.

Invocation of Extended Period for Limitation:
The appellant contested the invocation of the extended period for limitation, claiming that a communication in 1989 regarding changes in premises should have sufficed as intimation of activities. However, the tribunal noted that no specific details about the manufacturing activities were provided until detected by the Revenue, justifying the correct invocation of the extended limitation period.

Financial Hardship Consideration:
The appellant presented financial hardship arguments, showing incurred losses in a particular assessment year. Despite this, the balance sheet indicated sufficient assets to cover liabilities. The tribunal considered these aspects but ultimately directed the appellant to deposit 50% of the duty within a specified period to waive the remaining amount and pending penalties, failing which the appeal would be dismissed.

In conclusion, the tribunal upheld the duty confirmation and penalties imposed on the appellant for engaging in a manufacturing process of decorative lamps, dismissed arguments based on legal precedents, justified the invocation of the extended limitation period, and considered but did not fully accept financial hardship claims, providing a directive for partial payment to proceed with the appeal.