9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 711X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the SCN and duty was demanded only on the value of the manufactured goods - no central excise duty was payable at all. It is a well settled principle that manufacture involves change, but every change is not manufacture. Manufacture requires that a new distinct marketable goods should be produced. In this case, the raw material which the appellant was using was steel sheets, as known in the market. What the appellant was producing were MS Shuttering Plates, MS Round Shuttering Plates, MS Crash Bar Plates, MS Hunch Plates, MS Trusses, MS Jali, MS Bar, MS Pier Cap Set, MS Concrete Bucket etc. which are different products known to the market. The appellant is not selling its final products as steel sheets but as these products. There is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CAL) For the appellant : Shri Krishan Garg, Chartered Accountant For the Department : Shri Sanjay Kumar Singh, authorized representative ORDER M/s New India Engineering Works, Indore [appellant] filed this appeal to assail the order-in-appeal [Impugned order] dated 28.02.2018 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Goods Service Tax and Central Excise, Indore, whereby he partly allowed the appeal of the appellant and partly rejected it. 2. The appellant was engaged in manufacturing MS Shuttering Plates, MS Round Shuttering Plates, MS Crash Bar Plates, MS Hunch Plates, MS Trusses, MS Jali, MS Bar, MS Pier Cap Set, MS Concrete Buckets etc. On the basis of information that the appellant was evading central excis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of duty. He upheld the duty of Rs. 5,24,849/- along with interest and imposition of an equal amount of penalty under section 11AC. 5. This appeal has been filed by the appellant and it has no specific prayer. The following are the grounds of appeal :- (i) That appellant has wrongly been denied SSI exemption in the year 2014-15 ; (ii) That repeated/Duplicate bills wrongly considered twice which need to be excluded ; (iii) That value of Non-Manufactured goods wrongly considered as dutiable and confirmed the duty which is required to be deleted. (iv) That demand of Energy cess is not sustainable as per provisions of law ; (v) That penalty has wrongly been confirmed under section 11AC of CEA, 1944 ; (vi) That looking to de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods. Learned Chartered Accountant submits that since the processes undertaken by the appellant involved are only cutting, slitting, bending etc. they do not amount to manufacture. Therefore, no central excise duty was payable at all. On a query from the bench, he clarified that the appellant buys steel sheets and cuts them, bends them and makes them into the products, such as, MS Shuttering Plates, MS Round Shuttering Plates, MS Crash Bar Plates, MS Hunch Plates, MS Trusses, MS Jali, MS Bar, MS Pier Cap Set, MS Concrete Bucket etc. as indicated in the SCN. We have considered this submission. It is a well settled principle that manufacture involves change, but every change is not manufacture. Manufacture requires that a new distinct market ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch were wrongly considered twice which need to be excluded. These are as follows :- (i) Entry No. 36 of the Annexure G to the SCN under which Invoice No. 16 dated 12.11.2014 issued in the name of M/s Monte Carlo Ltd. for MS Shikanja of 4760 kg. transported by Vehicle No. MP-09 KD 3508 is the same as Invoice No. 24 issued on the same date in the name of the same party and the same quantity and in the same truck. According to the learned counsel, invoice No. 16 was issued and signed by Ms. Ritu Saraf who was not authorized to sign the bill. Therefore, another correct bill with invoice No. 24 was issued with proper person for the same consignment. After considering this submission, we agree that there is a duplication in these two invoices ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er, another invoice of the same number was issued showing of sub-contractor. In view of the above, the invoice issued in the name of main contractor M/s Agroh Infra Developers need to be deducted. After examining the records, we agree that the invoice No. 44 issued in the name of M/s Agroh Infra Developers needs to be deleted from the demand. 10. The appellant also contested the penalty imposed under section 11AC. We find that the appellant had not taken registration and had not paid central excise duty nor had disclosed its activities to the department. Its only the investigation which revealed the activities of th appellant. In view of this, we find that the appellant had evaded central excise duty while suppressing facts. Accordingly, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
