9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (10) TMI 1017X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s 44, 70, 76 and 94 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 manufactured and cleared by the appellant No. 1 during the period from 1993-94 upto January, 1999 and imposed penalty of Rs. 2,53,26,860/- on appellant No. 1, in addition to a penalty of Rs. 50 lakhs each on the other two appellants, who are partners of appellant No. 1. 2. The brief facts of the case are that M/s. Jayant K. Furnishers (hereinafter referred to as JKF) are engaged in the manufacture of various furniture items which are manufactured either at their factory or at the site of their clients. On 22-8-1996 Central Excise officers searched their premises and they seized certain records/documents relating to manufacture and removal of furniture items and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 99 dated 21-09-1999 the Tribunal remanded the matter for fresh decision after looking into the written contracts, if any, entered into by JKF with sub-contractors for manufacture of furniture and also considering the claim of the appellant that some of the items of furniture came into existence piece by piece on the floor, wall, etc. of the site of their client. Prior to the passing of the remand order, ten more show cause notices were issued covering the period from December, 1996 to April, 1997, July, 1997 to January, 1999. The appellant requested that all 11 show cause notices be taken up together for hearing. 3. The adjudicating authority held that M/s. JKF was the actual manufacturer of the furniture items. The relevant findings ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y of their purchase bills for the same. He held that aluminium sliding, windows were dutiable under Chapter heading 76.15, that doors, windows and partitions having wooden frame are classifiable under CET sub-heading 4410.90 attracting nil rate of duty, that duty demand on flush doors is not tenable since they are items purchased from open market on which duty had been paid. After extending the benefit of SSI exemption the duty demand was re-calculated at Rs. 1,68,26,860/- in respect of the first show cause notice dated 25-7-1997 which was the subject matter of the Tribunal's remand order, and Rs. 57,41,806/- in respect of the remaining ten show cause notices. He also imposed penalties as set out above. Hence these appeals. 5. We have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /s. JKF were the manufacturers and the labourers cannot be termed as independent sub-contractors. 6. The Commissioner has not addressed herself to the agreements entered into between the appellants and the sub-contractors although she was required to do so in terms of the Tribunal's remand order dated 21-9-1999. In para 5 of that order the Tribunal has held examination of the "agreements for the labour contract" was to be done for deciding who is the manufacturer and if there is a clear relationship as of principal to principal perceivable between M/s. JKF and the person at whose hands the furniture came into existence, it would have to be held that it was those persons and not M/s. JKF who brought into existence the actual items and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... principal relationship between themselves and the carpenters and polishers, etc., and on the finding that the final processes of converting the rough furniture into fully finished furniture was undertaken by the appellant themselves, the bench held that the appellant units were the manufacturers of the furniture. 8. Thus, it is seen that the emphasis is on the nature of the relationship between the appellants and sub-contractors. Since the nature of this relationship has not been examined by the Commissioner and since the examination is absolutely vital for the purpose of determining the basic issue as to who is the manufacturer of the goods on which duty has been demanded, we direct that this issue be examined afresh by the Commissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll/ceiling. We find that in the remand order dated 21-9-1999 the Tribunal directed the Commissioner to examine "whether unscrewing the parts alone would be sufficient to remove complete items of wood furniture. Such furniture may come into existence by joining or by attaching such incomplete furniture to an immovable structure such as the wall, such items of furniture of wood already attached to immovable property are excisable. It has to be examined whether in such a situation the items itself can be removable while preserving its integrity without causing it any significant damage and also whether such an item when so removed is capable of being marketable being as furniture". We also find that in the case of Ekbote Interiors Pvt. Ltd. & ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
