Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2015 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (2) TMI 303 - AT - Central ExciseDuty demand - assembling of various parts - Manufacturing activity or not - Procurement of procuring the metal/brass parts, fabricated metal items and capsule mirrors, polythene tubes and packing materials, lamp shade, glass shades, decorative glasses and other items for lamp shades and light fittings - Held that:- appellants were procuring the metal/brass parts, fabricated metal items and capsule mirrors, polythene tubes and packing materials, lamp shade, glass shades, decorative glasses and other items for lamp shades and light fittings. There is also a finding that all the components had been got manufactured with a specific design to match the design of the finished item and a specific item number or code number was put at the bottom of each item and cleared with brand name, logo and price tag in a cartoon as finished item. Thus, it is clear that appellant do not manufacture any component of lamp shade/chandeliers or other light fittings but procure the various component of the chandeliers lamp shades and light fittings of a particular design and packed the same in a box. In over view, this activity of the appellant would not amount to manufacture. - Since activity of the appellant does not amount to manufacture and as such the duty demand is not sustainable on merits. Even on limitation also, the duty demand is not sustainable as it is seen that KLS (MU) vide its letter dated 3/4/1989 addressed to Superintendent had intimated department that a part of the factory premises is being leased to another firm which would be conducting trading activity of the retailing of the goods sold to them and other goods purchased by them from the market. Thus, the department was fully aware of the existence of the appellant unit and its activity. In view of this, the longer limitation period of 5 years under proviso of the section 11A(1) of Central Excise 1944 would not be applicable and as such the duty demand raised vide show cause notice dated 31/1/2000 would be time barred. In this regard, the department s contention that the letter dated 3/4/1989 did not mention the exact activity of the appellant, is not acceptable, as once it has been intimated by KLS (MU) to the department that a portion of the factory has been leased by them to another firm for trading activity and along with this letter the ground plant had also been enclosed, it was for the department to ascertain as to what trading activity was being carried on there. In view of the above discussion, the impugned order is not sustainable. The same is set aside. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|