9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (8) TMI 637X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellants under "Rule 9 (2) and 173Q of C.E. Rules, 1944. 2. Appellants were charged in the show cause notice dated 28-9-88 that they were manufacturing Steel Furniture and parts thereof, wooden furniture, slotted angles, Mazzanine flooring, aluminium utensils etc. by suppressing the value of excisable goods cleared by them without following Central procedures and hence they were liable to pay over and above the slab of exemption limit under SSI notification. It was also contended by the appellants that what was removed was furniture and parts thereof falling under chapter heading 9403 and did not attract benefit of Notification No. 60/86. 3. The Addl. Collector rejected their plea and held that Slotted angles, Steel Panel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Sections as in 1989 (39) E.L.T. 666 (T) wherein also steel panels, shelves, partition plates, were held to be not furniture under erstwhile tariff item 40 of CET. He further submits that the items removed were not goods at all as they had not assumed the shape of furniture and hence are not excisable goods as held in Elecon Engg. Works as reported in 1999 (107) E.L.T. 337. He further points out that appellants had not suppressed any facts and had been filing declaration and maintained registers also as required for small scale industries and hence they had bona fide belief that these items were not marketable and not excisable as furniture. 6. He further submits that demands were time-barred as the department had not shown as to ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lotted angles, racks etc. The question is as to whether such clearances in the form of slotted angles, steel panels, partition plates, punch strip, floor gratings, corner plates, side sheets etc would be considered as furniture. Appellants various pleas pertaining to this aspect of the matter has not been considered by the Addl. Collector in the impugned order. He has considered the items cleared as furniture without examining the condition of the goods under which they were removed. The taxability is at the stage when the goods had been removed from the factory. Therefore, AC ought to have examined this issue in the light of item removed from the factory not in the manner in which they were assembled at each point in the factory of HAL or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
