TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 303X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pecific 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 KL ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filing of this appeal are, in brief, as under: 1. M/s. Kapoor Lamp Shade Company (Factory Shop) located at 1 DLF, Industrial Area, Main Mathura Road, Faridabad [hereinafter referred to as KLS (FS)], is a retailing proprietorship firm of Mrs Veena Kapoor. It is a shop located in the factory premises of M/s. Kapoor Lamp Shade Company (Manufacturing Unit) [hereinafter referred to as KLS (MU)], a partnership firm of Mrs. Kiran Kapoor and Sh. S. Kapoor. The duty demand and the penalty in this case are against KLS (FS). While KLS (MU) manufacture lamp shades and light fittings, the appellant-KLS (FS) procure various components of lamp shades and chandeliers from various sources including KLS (MU) and thereafter pack the same in cartons, put t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terest and also the imposition of penalty on them under section 11AC of Central Excise Act and under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise, 1944, but set aside the penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rule 1944 on Mrs. Veena Kapoor. Against this order of the Commissioner (appeals), thus appeal has been filed. 2. Heard both sides. 3. Sh. B.L. Narasimhan, ld. Counsel for the appellant, pleaded that the appellant unit is a factory shop located in a part of factory of KLS (MU), that KLS (MU) manufacture various components of lamp shades and chandeliers and supply the same to various customers along with bought out items, that KLS (MU) are paying duty on the goods being cleared by them after availing the SSI exemption; that so far as th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... name, character and usage, and therefore, does not amount to manufacture; that this judgment of the Tribunal has been upheld by the Apex Court in the judgment reported in 2001 (130) ELT A259 (SC), that the Ratio of these judgments of the Tribunal, High Court and Apex Court are squarely applicable to the facts of this case that in any case, the duty demand for the period from 1 /1/1998 to 31/3/2000 raised by the Show Cause Notice dated 31/1/2003 is totally time barred as extended limitation period under proviso to section 11 A(1) of the Central Excise Act,1944 is not applicable to this case for the reason that setting up of factory retail shop in the factory premises of KLS (MU) had been intimated to the department under its letter dated 3/4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was only an intimation about trading activities of KLS (FS) and in this letter no intimation had been given about assembling of various light fittings. He, therefore, pleaded that there is no infirmity in the impugned order. 5. We have considered the submissions from the both sides and perused the records. The activity of the appellant firm is described in para 5 of the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (appeals) wherein it is mentioned that the 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Tribunal has been confirmed by the Apex Court. We are of the view that the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of TI Diamond Chains (supra), the judgment of Hon ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of XL Telecom Ltd. (supra) and the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of CCE Delhi-I Vs. Kapoor Enterprises (Supra) are squarely applicable to the facts of this case as in this case the appellant merely procured various components/parts of lamp shades and other light fittings and packed the same in card boxes and put their logo. In view of this, we hold that the activity of the appellant does not amount to manufacture and as such the duty demand is not sustainable on merits. 6. Even on limitation also, the duty demand is not s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
