2014 (1) TMI 1568 - AT - Central Excise

Duty demand - show cause notice was issued to the respondents on the ground that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of office furniture system falling under Chapter Heading 9403 of the Tariff - Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the demand on the ground that the respondents were only assembling the duty paid parts of the furniture as the furniture was manufactured by M/s. Kemp & Co. - Held that - there is no allegation in the show cause notice that the respondents were not receiving all the parts of the furniture. In fact the manufacturer has paid duty under Chapter Heading 9403 of the Tariff which covers other furniture . The furniture manufactured was cleared in CKD condition for ease of transportation and the respondents were only assembling the parts of the furniture at site. In view of this we find no infirmity in the impugned order - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against demand set aside by Commissioner (Appeals)
- Whether assembling parts of furniture amounts to manufacture
- Allegation of not receiving complete parts of furniture

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI was filed by the Revenue against an order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside a demand. The case revolved around the issue of whether the respondents, engaged in the manufacture of office furniture falling under Chapter Heading 9403 of the Tariff, were merely assembling duty paid parts of the furniture or engaging in manufacturing activities. The Revenue contended that the assembly of furniture by the respondents should be considered as manufacture since they were not receiving complete parts of the furniture.

Upon reviewing the show cause notice and the adjudication order, the Tribunal noted that the manufacturer had paid duty under Chapter Heading 9403 of the Tariff, covering 'other furniture,' and the furniture was cleared in CKD (Completely Knocked Down) condition for ease of transportation. It was found that the respondents were only assembling the parts of the furniture at the site. The Tribunal observed that there was no allegation in the show cause notice that the respondents were not receiving all the parts of the furniture. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) and dismissed the appeal, finding no infirmity in the impugned order.

In conclusion, the Tribunal held that the assembly of furniture by the respondents, using duty paid parts received from the manufacturer, did not amount to manufacturing activities. The decision emphasized the importance of the specific details provided in the show cause notice and the duty paid status of the furniture parts in determining the nature of the activities undertaken by the respondents.