9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (6) TMI 181X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri Rajeev D. Waglay, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri S.G. Dewalwar, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T)]. - This appeal has been filed against the Order-in-Original No. 14/2004-05(RP) de novo dated 15-10-2004 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise Customs, Visakhapatnam. 2. Shri Rajeev D. Waglay, the learned Advocate, appeared on behalf of the appellant and Shri S.G. Dewalwar, the learned SDR, appeared for the Revenue. 3. We heard both sides. 4. The appellant, M/s. Interscape, were having a small carpentry shop at Mumbai where they used to undertake manufacture of goods classifiable under Chapter Nos. 44 and 94 and the said premises was registered under the Central Excise Rules. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... manded the matter to the Commissioner for de novo adjudication after making certain observations. The de novo adjudication was done and the Commissioner passed an order dated 16-3-2000 confirming a demand of Rs. 7,74,748/- and a penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/-. Against the said order of the Commissioner, the appellant filed an appeal before this Bench, and this Bench vide order dated 8-4-2004, once again remanded the matter to the Original Authority for examining the following :- "(a) The issues pertaining to the wardrobe, bar counters and reception counter to be goods or not. The re-examination had to be in the light of judgment in Triveni Engineering Inds. Ltd. Board Circular cited by the appellants. (b) Whether the sub-contractors were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (v) Not considering the directions given by the Hon'ble CESTAT in its order dt. 8-4-2004 vis-a-vis the CBEC Circular No. 58/l/2002-CX dt. 15-1-2002 in the context of immovable nature of wardrobes luggage racks. (vi) Not considering the detailed submissions made by the appellant in para A1 to D4 of its written submissions dt. 15-6-2004 in support of its contention that they were not manufacturers sub-contractors were the manufacturers. (vii) Not appreciating the fact that S. 11AB was not in existence during the period under adjudication and hence, interest u/s. 11AB could not have been levied at all. Even the previous order of the Commissioner dt. 16-3-2000 had not levied interest for this reason. (viii) Increasing the penalty und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts cannot be considered as manufacturers when they had entrusted the work to different sub-contractors who actually did the entire work. In that case, the sub-contractors who carried out the various items of work in furnishing M/s. Park, are the actual manufacturers and no proceedings have been initiated against them. Hence, the demand of duty is not at all justified. When we take that view, there is no need for even examining each and every item whether they are movable or immovable or excisable or not because once it is held that the appellant are not the manufacturers, then no duty can be demanded from them. No penalty also can be imposed. Consequently, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief. (Op ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
