TMI Blog2007 (7) TMI 549X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ture, M/s. Ajni Industries, M/s. Ajni Enterprises and M/s. Ajni Clean Rooms were operating from the premises at 20-21, Gujarat Industrial Estate, Vadodara. They were not having separate manufacturing area for each unit. They have not obtained registration and were not paying central excise duty on their clearances of aluminum flesh doors, windows, partition, profiles etc. and wooden furniture. (b) The statements were recorded from the Accountant, Mechanical Draftsman, Office Assistant who were looking after all these units and Director of M/s. Ajni Clean Rooms. It appeared that there was only one electric connection for the all five units; workers and office staff are common for all units; there was inter transfer of funds among bank ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e items so sent were subject to further cutting, drilling, bending etc. to exact measurements and then the work of fixing the frame and window door frame as part of the civil work , and then to bring into existence doors, aluminum flesh doors, aluminum panels etc. The product so assembled at the customer s site becomes part of the immovable property. In the circumstances no duty was leviable on the product leaving the premises of the appellant. He relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. AGV Alfab Limited [2005 (186) E.L.T. 451 (Tri-Del.)]. 4.2 The ld. Advocate also submits that treating all the five units as one and demanding duty on M/s. Ajni Clean Rooms is not legally correct. In relation to emergence the above mentio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l products. Windows, doors etc. come into existence only upon, installation along with other members. These are constructed piecemeal. Items do not come into existence as identifiable commercial products in a factory or other manufacturing premises. The appellant s contention that construction at site does not involve manufacture of excisable goods is covered by judgment of the Apex Court in the case of CCE, Nagpur v. Wainganga Sahkari S. Karkhana Ltd. and the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Suvidha Engineers (India) Ltd. v. CCE, Delhi. The duty demand in the present case is not sustainable. In the absence of duty demand, penalties are also not justified. 7. The facts of the present case which have been narrated in detail by us ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
