9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1305X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 01/03/2003 was denied to the appellant company - Held that: - the fixtures erected at the customer’s site cannot be considered as loose furniture, for the purpose of levy of Central Excise duty. Thus, the value of such fixtures cannot be included in the assessable value of loose furniture for the purpose of computation of the SSI threshold limit - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngaged in the manufacture of wooden loose furniture and articles of wood in its factory, and for that purpose, is registered with this Central Excise department. The appellant also undertakes the activity of interior decorator service and carries out such activites in the hotels/resorts at the respective sites of the customers. For providing such service, the appellant company is also registered w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xtures assembled at the client s site are not subjected to levy of Central Excise duty and accordingly, the appellant company had discharged appropriate Service Tax liability under the Works Contract Service. Thus, he submits that a single transaction cannot be leviable to Central Excise duty as well as for payment of Service Tax. Accordingly, he submits that since the Service Tax payment on the W ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tements recorded from Shri H.K. Juneja, Production Manager of the appellant company as well as Shri Vijayanand, who had stated that the appellant is not paying Central Excise duty on all their clearances but duty is being paid only on loose furniture i.e. sofa, table, chair, bed etc., and no Central Excise duty was paid by them on contract items like Skeletal boxes. Wooden floorings, moldings et ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f loose furniture for the purpose of computation of the SSI threshold limit. 6. Therefore, I do not find any merits in the impugned order, so far as it confirms the duty demand and the penalty on the appellant company. Further, the impugned order is also not sustainable for imposition of personal penalty on the Managing Director of the appellant company. 7. In the result, after setting aside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
