9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 241X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Excise Officers during the visit of their business premises found that the other units M/s. Tab Top Steel Industries and M/s. Fab Craft Industries are also situated in the same premises. M/s. Tab Top Steel Industries is a partnership firm and M/s. Fab Craft Industries is a proprietorship firm. A show cause notice dated 23.04.2002 was issued proposing demand of duty to the tune of Rs. 16,12,400/- on the respondents along with interest and penalty by clubbing the clearance value of the other two units. The other units and the M.D of the respondents were directed to show cause as to why the penalty would not be imposed under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The adjudicating authority clubbed the clearance value of the three units namely BK Office needs, Tab top Steel Industries and Fab Craft Industries and hold that the goods are classifiable as "Systems Furniture and Work Stations" under chapter heading 9403.00 and confirmed the demand of duty of Rs. 16,12,400/- along with interest and penalty. A penalty of Rs. 1,61,000/- was imposed on Shri Ramanathan, Managing Director of the respondent Company under Rule 209A. By the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) set as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ritorial Manager of the respondent Company in his statement stated that the systems installed by them is 100% modular in nature and the system can be taken to any place and re-installed there. Shri S.N. Barnabas, Manager Purchase and production control of M/s. Matasushita Air Conditioning Ltd., customer of the respondent company has stated in the same manner. On the basis of the said statements, the Ld. AR submits that in this case, modular systems are mobile and therefore excisable. He relied upon the decisions of the Tribunal in the case of Cognizant Technology Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. CC (AP & ADMN), Kolkata-I - 2012 (286) ELT 77 (Tri.-Kol.) and Featherlite Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Bangalore-III - 2007 (208) ELT 143 (Tri.-Bang.). He also submits that the adjudicating authority while calculating the demand, has taken into consideration of the bought out items. Regarding classification of the goods, the Ld. AR refers para 1.3 of the show cause notice. 6. On the other hand the Ld. Advocate on behalf of the respondent submits that the respondents supplied the work stations initially to Bangalore and Hyderabad. He submits that they are not handling any activities in their p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d on perusal of the records, we find that two issues are involved in these appeals. One is clubbing of the clearance value of all the three units viz., M/s. B.K. Office Needs Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Tab Top Steel Industries and M/s. Fab Craft Industries and denial of SSI exemption. The other issue is classification of the goods. According to the Revenue, Shri S. Ramanathan, Managing Director of M/s. B.K. Office Needs is controlling all the units. The constitution of the three units is as under:- M/s. B.K. Office Needs Pvt. Ltd.,- Shri S. Ramanathan. Managing Director Shri S. Karthikeyan B/o. Sh. S. Ramanathan, Shri C. Balaraman, Brother-in-law of Sh. S. Ramanathan M/s. Tab Top Steel Industries Partnership Firm Shri C. Adiseshan, B/o. Shri C. Balaraman Smt. Savithri Ramanathan W/o. Sh. S. Ramanathan, Smt. Prema Karthikeyan W/o. Sh. S. Karthikeyan M/s. Fab Craft Industries Shri S. Srinivasan, B/o. Sh. S. Ramanathan, Manager of M/s. B.K. Office Needs Pvt. Ltd. 10. The Revenue in the grounds of appeal stated that the minutes of the meeting ie., a common document for all the three entities and it is mentioned that the decision taken by Shri S. Ramanathan, MD of M/s. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Commissioner (Appeals) observed as under:- "From the case records, I find that the appellant is supplying modular office partitions, partitioned workstations and furniture by procuring components from various suppliers and integrate and install them at their customer's premises. They also supply furniture such as tables, tale tops chairs, computer tables, cupboards and filing cabinets which are bought out items. It is not disputed that the appellant make modular partitions as per the customer's requirements at the customer's premises depending on various ground situations. Petitions are erected by fixing aluminium connecting post. To this connection, aluminium extrusion, laminated or melamine boards or glass panels are raised for the specific purpose of separating the floor area and the place where such a working cubicle is placed. The mere activity of fixing the aluminium bordered laminated sheets or glass panels to the aluminium poles and grounded to the earth does not become manufacture of furniture or parts of furniture. The Aluminium poles, extrusion, glass panels and the laminated particle are all bought out items. By fabrication and assembly no new commodit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ir 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. In the same issue, the Commissioner (A), Chennai-IV vide the order referred supra has taken a similar view and I do not find any reason to take a divergent view. Hence, I hold that 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. 11. Next, coming to the aspect of clubbing of value of clearances of three units namely M/s. BK Office Needs, M/s. Tab Top and M/s. Fab Craft, the lower adjudicating authority has not put forth any convincing argument to establish the mutuality of interest among the constituent units. In his findings, he has held that the exclusivity of transactions with the appellant unit by Fab Craft and Tab Top clearly establishes that the goods manufactured and cleared by Fab Craft and Tab Top on behalf of the appellant unit is a façade. Exclusivity of transactions can never be a deciding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
