2012 (7) TMI 824 - AT - Central Excise

Waiver of pre-deposit of duty - Held that - applicants are fabricating Roller Blinds/Vertical Blind out of the bought out items at site. We find prima facie such activity does not amount to manufacture hence the applicants have a strong case in their favour. Hence, the pre-deposit of the duty, interest and penalty is waived and recovery of the same is stayed for hearing of the appeal - Stay granted.

Summary

Issues:
Waiver of pre-deposit of duty, interest, and penalty for fabrication of Roller Blinds/Vertical Blinds.

Analysis:
The applicant filed applications seeking waiver of pre-deposit of duty, interest, and penalty amounting to Rs. 1,65,326. The case revolved around the fabrication of Roller Blinds/Vertical Blinds at the site by the applicants after buying various items. A show cause notice was issued, contending that such fabrication did not amount to manufacture. The adjudicating authority upheld the demand, which was subsequently confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals).

The applicant argued that the fabrication of Roller Blinds/Vertical Blinds did not constitute manufacture as they were merely assembling bought-out items on-site. They also highlighted that the adjudicating authority failed to classify the goods in question properly. The applicants emphasized that they were paying appropriate VAT on the purchased items and service tax as a works contract for the installation at the customer's premises. They referenced a previous Tribunal order that remanded a similar matter for a clear finding on whether the activity amounted to manufacture and the proper classification of goods.

The Revenue contended that the goods were classifiable under Heading No. 3925 of the Tariff, as per the Commissioner (Appeals)'s finding. The Tribunal observed that the applicants were indeed fabricating Roller Blinds/Vertical Blinds using bought-out items on-site. The Tribunal prima facie found that such activity did not amount to manufacture, indicating a strong case in favor of the applicants. Consequently, the pre-deposit of duty, interest, and penalty was waived, and the recovery of the same was stayed pending the appeal hearing.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the stay petitions, emphasizing that the applicants had a compelling argument that the fabrication process did not constitute manufacture. The decision to waive the pre-deposit and stay the recovery of duty, interest, and penalty reflected the Tribunal's initial assessment of the case in favor of the applicants.