9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (5) TMI 108X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... adjudicating authority cannot go beyond the scope of the show cause notice. Hence the demand of duty on doors is set aside. The adjudicating authority has rightly held that wall claddir/column cladding, soft board paneling, wall paneling, teak wood shelf, etc. would be immoveable property and do not attract levy of central excise duty. Similarly the following items also would be considered as immoveable property : Skirting, Raceway, Beading, Frame work above false ceiling, mirror panellings, window sil, grooves, patta. In view of this fact the items in question would not cease to be furnitures. Even when an immoveable property is sold, the sale value normally would not include the value of furnitures. The Commissioner's decision to treat the values as cum-duty price is correct in view of the dismissal of department's review petition by Apex Court in Maruti Udyog case [ 2004 (12) TMI 669 - SC ORDER] . Therefore there is no merit in the departmental appeal. We remand the matter to the adjudicating authorities to recalculate their duty liability in the light of our findings and observations. However, since the appellants failed to obtain Central Excise Registration the invocat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the duty payable on such goods and without following any Central Excise procedure. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore-I passed O-I-O No. 16/2003 dated 24-9-2003 and O-I-A 89/04 dated 17-8-2004. In respect of the same appellants operating at Hyderabad, Revenue proceeded against them resulting in the passing of Orders-in-Original Nos. 5, 6, 7/04 dated 26-3-2004. The details of duty demanded and penalties imposed have already been given in the tabular column above. In respect of O-I-O passed by the Commissioner, Bangalore, Revenue has come in appeal on the ground that the Commissioner had given the cum-duty benefit to the party when the matter is pending with the Apex Court. The appellants have strongly challenged the findings of the adjudicating authorities. 3. S/Shri G. Shivadas, and Anil Kumar, learned Advocates appeared on behalf of the appellants (Craft Interiors Ltd.) and Shri L. Narasimha Murthy, learned SDR appeared for Revenue. 4. The learned advocates adduced the following arguments. (i) The show cause notice proposed classification of all the goods in question under Chapter Sub-heading 9403 and demanded consequential duty. The appellant submitted that some of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the value of clearances, value, etc. of remaining item could be less than the value specified in the SSI Notification and there by exempted from payment of duty. (iv) The appellants were under bona fide belief that the items erected by them at site were not excisable and hence no Central Excise Registration was taken. There was no intention to evade payment of duty. This is evident as substantial part of the demand of duty of Rs. 1,99,60,809/- has been set aside and that too after site inspection by the adjudicating authority only an amount of Rs. 49,98,655/- has been confirmed. Therefore the question of suppression with an intent to evade payment of duty does not arise and longer period is not invocable. He relied on the following case laws : (a) Padmini Products v. CCE - 1989 (43) E.L.T. 195 (S.C.) (b) Tecumseh Products India Ltd. v. CCE - 2004 (167) E.L.T. 498 (S.C.) (v) The only ground raised in the departmental appeal is that since they had filed a review petition before the Supreme Court in the CCE v. Maruti Udyog Ltd. - 2002 (141) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.), the Commissioner had erred in giving the benefit of Cum-duty price to the appellants since the matter had not attained finality. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hapter 9304 and has held that they are not furniture. He has stated that there are other types of workstation which are called modular furniture which are made in a factory and are readily available in the market. They can be bought and ready to fix. Such workstations are classifiable under 9304. In his findings he has not stated whether the workstation in respect of the appellants is of the first or second kind which he has mentioned. The appellants' contention is that he had included the value of the workstations which in their opinion are formed at site. In view of the adjudicating authorities' finding that such workstations cannot be classified under 9304, we hold that the workstations are not excisable. We agree with the finding of the adjudicating authority in para 74 where he has held that partitions are immoveable property permanently fastened to the building and hence not excisable. We agree with the finding the adjudicating authority with regard to partitions. Even though the finding that the flush doors and wooden doors are classifiable under Chapter 44 is correct, the appellant's contention that this finding was beyond the scope of the show cause notice has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
