2016 (11) TMI 273 - AT - Central Excise

Demand - Penalty - the issue as stated by both sides is regarding the excisability of the furniture s assembled at the site of the customers - Held that - the contentions raised by the learned departmental representative as the decision of the Tribunal in the respondent s own case, covers the issue squarely the issue and the said decision of the Tribunal is upheld by the Honourable High Court of Delhi - Decided in favor of the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against order setting aside proceedings initiated by show cause notice dated 30/4/2002 regarding excisability of furniture assembled at customer sites.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI was filed by the revenue challenging an order setting aside proceedings initiated by a show cause notice dated 30/4/2002. The respondent was engaged in assembling modular furniture at customer sites, leading to a demand for duty, interest, and penalties by the revenue. The adjudicating authority dropped the proceedings initiated, prompting the revenue to appeal the decision. The revenue contended that the respondent's activities amounted to manufacturing furniture at customer sites, citing various legal precedents to support their argument.

The learned Departmental Representative argued that the respondent's activities constituted manufacturing, referring to decisions such as Commr v. Wipro GE Medical Systems Ltd. and other relevant cases. However, the learned Counsel for the respondent highlighted a previous case before the Tribunal, where a similar issue was decided in favor of the respondent and upheld by the High Court of Delhi. The Tribunal, after considering both sides' submissions and reviewing the records, found that the issue of excisability of furniture assembled at customer sites was settled in the respondent's favor based on the previous Tribunal decision and the High Court's affirmation. Consequently, the Tribunal did not find any merit in the revenue's appeal and upheld the impugned order, rejecting the revenue's appeal.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI upheld the impugned order that set aside the proceedings initiated by the show cause notice dated 30/4/2002. The Tribunal found that the issue of excisability of furniture assembled at customer sites was already decided in the respondent's favor in a previous case, which was upheld by the High Court of Delhi. Therefore, the revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the impugned order was upheld.