9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (5) TMI 87X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mitted that the appellants manufacture fire alarm panels, repeater panels, hooters, pill boxes, response indicators, etc.; that as their clearances were well within the exemption limit as provided under Notification No. 175/86, they were filing the declarations with the Department; that the Appellants were entering into 4 types of contract - (i) Contract for supply of material only for fire alarm system or burglar alarm system; (ii) Contract for supply of material and testing/commissioning of fire/burglar alarm system; (iii) Contract for supply of materials along with installations and erection of the system and testing/commissioning; (iv) Contract for testing/commissioning and repair of fire/burglar alarm system. 2.2 H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed upon the decision in the case of CCE v. Radiant Electronics Ltd., 1996 (85) E.L.T. 102 (T) wherein it was held that installation and commissioning are not activities amounting to manufacture and value of bought out items supplied besides manufactured articles shall not be includible even if they are essential for the operation of manufactured goods provided they are not fitted or attached to the goods before clearance and no process is undertaken on the bought out items. He mentioned that fire alarm systems as such does not come into existence in the factory of the Appellants; that the finding of the Additional Collector that fire alarm system was made functional in their premises is not factually correct. 3. Finally he submitted that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... split air-conditioner as therein also they are connected with wires; that a new goods as Fire Alarm System comes into existence. He relied upon the decision in the case of Koron Business Sytems Ltd. v. Union of India, 1992 (58) E.L.T. 48, wherein it was held that the value of timers and lense which is fitted into photocopier at site is to be included in the assessable value of the photocopier. Reliance was also placed on the decision in Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd. v. CCE, Hyderabad, 1998 (97) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) wherein it was held that paper making machine assembled and erected at site mainly from bought out components is goods. He emphasised that as per the contract, the Appellants were to provide a complete fire alarm system and bought out items ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emanding duty for the period from 1986-87 to 1989-90. We agree with the learned Chartered Accountant that the extended period of limitation is not invokable in the present matter as the Appellants had disclosed their activities to the Department and also furnished Declarations. In their declaration filed on 2-12-1985 they had clearly mentioned that the value of goods would not exceed Rs. 20,00,000/- and they had given separately the cost of various items. It is well settled that if the Department was made aware of the facts, merely non-taking of excise licence or non-filing of classification/price list would not attract clause of suppression with an intent to evade payment of duty. We are, thus, of the view that the demand is also hit by ti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
