9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (4) TMI 241 - AT - Central ExciseClassification of goods - Other furniture and parts thereof - SSI exemption - Clubbing of the clearance value of all the three units - Held that - it is evident that the appellants are engaged in the supply of modular office partitions, workstations and furniture by procuring components from various sources and integrate and install them at their customers premises. Their activity of fabrication and assembly of components does not result in the emergence of any new commodity, which is movable or marketable as such. The individual components remain as such and there is no transformation into a distinct commodity. - the impugned goods called as modular system furniture or workstations cannot be classified as a collective item as other furniture or parts , under CH 9403 of CETA, 1985. Clubbing of clearance - Held that - Exercise of common managerial control was not sufficient to make out the others as dummy units, as held in the case of Alpha Toyo Ltd. Vs. CCE, New Delhi - 1994 (3) TMI 203 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI . On perusal of the records, there is no material available of flow-back of funds. It is well settled by a series of decisions that mere common partners and proprietor of other concern, and use of staff etc., would not sufficient to hold that units are one and the same. After going through the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), we do not find any reason for clubbing of the three units. On the identical issue the Revenue initiated the proceedings in other Commissionerates. The proceedings initiated in the Hyderabad Commissionerate and Bangalore Commissionerate were dropped by the respective Commissioner (A). There is no material that the order of the Tribunal was challenged before the higher Appellate Authority. In the present appeals also, Revenue took the same grounds as in other cases. We have already stated that there is no evidence of financial flow back with the other units. So, we agree with the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) on both the issues. - No reason to interfere with the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). - Decided against Revenue.
Issues Involved:
1. Clubbing of the clearance value of three units and denial of SSI exemption. 2. Classification of the goods. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Clubbing of the Clearance Value of Three Units and Denial of SSI Exemption: Revenue filed appeals against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), which set aside the adjudication orders and allowed the respondents' appeals. The respondents are suppliers of modular office partitions, workstations, and furniture, and also supply bought-out items. The Revenue contended that the respondents manufactured "Modular Office Furniture Systems, Work Stations, and general furniture" and proposed a demand of duty by clubbing the clearance value of three units: M/s. B.K. Office Needs Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Tab Top Steel Industries, and M/s. Fab Craft Industries. The adjudicating authority clubbed the clearance value of these units, classified the goods under chapter heading 9403.00, and confirmed the demand of duty along with interest and penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside this order, leading to the Revenue's appeal. The Revenue argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) erroneously treated the three units as separate entities based on their separate sales tax registration and lack of financial flow-back. They claimed that the Managing Director of M/s. B.K. Office Needs controlled the other two units and provided evidence of common management and financial control. The respondents argued that the three units are independent entities with separate income tax registrations and no financial flow-back. They cited previous decisions and Board's Circular to support their argument against clubbing. The Tribunal found that the three units had separate legal identities and registrations, and there was no evidence of financial flow-back. The Tribunal referenced the case of Alpha Toyo Ltd. Vs. CCE, New Delhi, which held that common managerial control alone is insufficient to consider units as one entity. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision, rejecting the Revenue's appeal on this issue. 2. Classification of the Goods: The Revenue contended that the modular office furniture systems were excisable as they were mobile and could be re-installed. They relied on statements from company representatives and customers, and cited previous Tribunal decisions. The respondents argued that the goods were immovable and would be damaged if dismantled, thus not excisable. They cited the Supreme Court decision in Craft Interiors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner, which held that such furniture is not excisable. The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the respondents supplied modular office partitions and furniture by assembling components at customer premises. The assembly did not result in a new, movable commodity. The Commissioner (Appeals) concluded that the goods were not excisable, as they were not marketable or movable. The Tribunal noted that similar proceedings in Hyderabad and Bangalore were dropped by the respective Commissioner (Appeals) and upheld by the Tribunal. The Tribunal agreed with the Commissioner (Appeals)'s findings that the goods were not excisable and rejected the Revenue's appeal on this issue. Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision on both issues, rejecting the Revenue's appeals. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order, affirming that the three units should not be clubbed for SSI exemption and that the goods were not excisable. The order was pronounced in open court on 02.12.2014.
|
