9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1305X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ORDER These appeals are directed against the impugned order dated 18/05/2012 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, New Delhi, upholding the adjudication order dated 30/11/2010, wherein Central Excise duty demand of Rs. 10,19,011/- along with interest was confirmed and equal amount of penalty was imposed on the appellant company. Besides, personal penalty of Rs. 2 Lakhs was also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /2003. During the disputed period, the appellant company had undertaken interior decorator job and also assembling of the fixtures in the customer's hotels. The fixtures assembled at the site were considered by the department as the manufactured goods and accordingly, the value of such fixtures were added to the assessable value of the furniture sold from the factory and the benefit of SSI Notific ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... excisable goods. 4. On the other hand, the Ld. DR appearing for the Revenue reiterates the findings recorded in the impugned order and further referred to various invoices appearing at page 16 in the show cause notice to state that the appellant had removed the furniture in as it is condition from the factory and as such, is liable to pay Central Excise duty on those furniture. 5. Heard both sid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the appellant. It is evident from the records that the department has not countered the statements furnished by the Production Manager as well as the Managing Director and also did not disprove that the Service Tax liability has been discharged on the furniture/ fixtures erected at the site. Thus, in my considered view, the fixtures erected at the customer's site cannot be considered as loose fu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
