Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2015 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (4) TMI 241 - AT - Central ExciseClassification of goods - Other furniture and parts thereof - SSI exemption - Clubbing of the clearance value of all the three units - Held that:- it is evident that the appellants are engaged in the supply of modular office partitions, workstations and furniture by procuring components from various sources and integrate and install them at their customers' premises. Their activity of fabrication and assembly of components does not result in the emergence of any new commodity, which is movable or marketable as such. The individual components remain as such and there is no transformation into a distinct commodity. - the impugned goods called as modular system furniture or workstations cannot be classified as a collective item as 'other furniture or parts', under CH 9403 of CETA, 1985. Clubbing of clearance - Held that:- Exercise of common managerial control was not sufficient to make out the others as dummy units, as held in the case of Alpha Toyo Ltd. Vs. CCE, New Delhi - [1994 (3) TMI 203 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI]. On perusal of the records, there is no material available of flow-back of funds. It is well settled by a series of decisions that mere common partners and proprietor of other concern, and use of staff etc., would not sufficient to hold that units are one and the same. After going through the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), we do not find any reason for clubbing of the three units. On the identical issue the Revenue initiated the proceedings in other Commissionerates. The proceedings initiated in the Hyderabad Commissionerate and Bangalore Commissionerate were dropped by the respective Commissioner (A). There is no material that the order of the Tribunal was challenged before the higher Appellate Authority. In the present appeals also, Revenue took the same grounds as in other cases. We have already stated that there is no evidence of financial flow back with the other units. So, we agree with the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) on both the issues. - No reason to interfere with the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). - Decided against Revenue.
|