Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s. Virgo Industries (Engineers) Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise Chennai II Commissionerate, Chennai

2015 (4) TMI 247 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

Excisability of Signages which are erected at various petrol bunks of IOC - Circular No.58/1/02-CX dated 15.1.2002 - Whether Tribunal in [2009 (4) TMI 258 - CESTAT, CHENNAI] was right in upholding the order of the Commissioner treating the signages as movable property contrary to the clarification issued by the Board - Held that:- findings of the Commissioner as well as the Tribunal are that the signages are capable of movable and are installed by fixing it on a concrete foundation and can be de .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

with regard to immovable final products. In the present case, both the Authorities have come to the conclusion that the final product is not immovable. Therefore the circular is of no avail to the appellant. - Decided against assessee. - C.M.A. No.1303 of 2009 & M.P.No.1 of 2009 - Dated:- 19-3-2015 - R. Sudhakar And R. Karuppiah,JJ. For the Appellant : Mrs. Pushya Sitaraman For the Respondent : Mr. K. Mohanamurali Standing Counsel JUDGMENT (Delivered By R. Sudhakar, J.) This Civil Miscellaneous .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e case, the Tribunal was right in upholding the order of the Commissioner treating the signages as movable property contrary to the clarification issued by the Board?" 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: On 23.1.2000, based on intelligence, the Officers of the Department visited the premises of the appellant and examined the records. The Officers found that the appellant/assessee had been manufacturing and supplying signages (illuminated signs) under a contract with M/s.Indian Oi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e appellant as well as to the Managing Director of the company proposing to recover central excise duty and for imposing penalty. The show cause notice was issued in the following terms: " 14. Now, therefore M/s. Virgo Industries (Engineers) Pvt. Ltd, Chennai - 600 058, are hereby required show cause to the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai II Commissionerate, MHU Complex, 692, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai - 600 035 within 30 days from the date of receipt of this notice as to why:- a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ntral Excise Act 1944 and Rule 173Q(1) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. c) The interest on the duty amount should not be charged under section 11AB of Central Excise Act 1944. d) The seized goods valued ₹ 3,29,925/- as shown in the Annexure to seizure mahazar dated 25.9.2000 and later released provisionally should not be confiscated under Rule 173Q(1) Central Excise Rules 1944/Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. 14.1 Shri. Mathew Kuncheriah, Manag .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

es manufactured/assembled by M/s.Virgo Industries (Engineers ) Pvt. Ltd., No.43 Second Main Road, Ambattur Industrial Estate, Ambattur, Chennai - 58 are excisable and chargeable to duty. The Signages are classifiable under C S H 9405.90 and chargeable to appropriate duty of excise 2. I confirm and demand Central Excise duty of ₹ 98,20,679/- (Rs.Ninty eight lakhs twenty thousand six hundred and seventy nine only) and ₹ 84374/- (Eighty four thousand three hundred and seventy four only) .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Ambattur, Chennai - 58 is however given the option to redeem the confiscated goods on payment of redemption fine of ₹ 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only). This option is to be exercised within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order. 4. I impose a penalty of ₹ 99,05,053/- (Rupees Ninety nine lakhs five thousand and fifty three only) under Section 11 AC Central Excise Act, 1944 on M/s.Virgo Industries (Engineers) Pvt. Ltd., No.43 Second Main Road, Ambattur Industrial Estate, Amb .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

demand interest under Section 11AB of Central Excise Act, 1944 on the duty determined paras 2 above." 4. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, on the substantial issue dismissed the appeal. However, the Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed under Rule 173Q on the company and reduced the penalty imposed on the Managing Director of the company to ₹ 2.00 lakhs. 5. Not satisfied with the order of the Tribunal, the appellant/asse .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the vinyl sheets cut into signs, the electrical panels concealed within the signboard etc. got manufactured by third parties and that the signages proper had been erected at the various IOC bunks. It is the specific case of the appellant that at the premises of the appellant only sign poles were fabricated and the signages were erected using the components received at the various sites from their manufacturers. It is also the specific case of the appellant that signages came into existence only .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

r contention, the assessee relied on the following decisions: 1. Gold stone Engineering Ltd. Vs.Union of India 2005 (181) ELT 11 (AP) 2. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai Vs. India Pistons Ltd. - 1998 (104) ELT 494 (Tribunal) 3. Collector of Central Excise, Bhubaneswar Vs. Radiant Electronics Ltd. - 1996 (85) ELT 102 (Tribunal) 4. Triveni Engineering & Indus. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise 2000 (120) ELT 273 (SC) 5. Hyderabad Race Club, Malakpet, Hyderabad Vs. Collector of Cen .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

to duty. The other factual issue that was considered by the Tribunal was whether the appellant had cleared complete signages in unassembled form to the sites or whether sign poles alone were cleared by the assessee from its factory and the remaining parts of signages got manufactured by it on job work basis were received at the respective locations directly from the contractors of Virgo for eventual erection. 10. The Tribunal, after going through the composition of signages, which includes stee .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d for convenience of transportation to various petrol bunks of IOC for erection. 11. These signages, according to the Adjudicating Authority and the Tribunal, fall under CSH 9405.90. To accept the adjudication order with regard to the assembly of the entire signage at the premises of the appellant, the Tribunal placed reliance on the statement of Shri.V.R.Prasad, Deputy Chief Inspecting Engineer of RITES dated 06.11.2000 and the statement of Shri.Prabhakar Ayer, Senior Engineering Manager of IOC .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rts of signages were taken to IOC outlets and assembled at site. He also states that assembled signages were dismantled for convenience of transportation to the respective sites where they were reassembled. It is also on record that as per mahazar dated 23.8.2000 drawn at the premises of Virgo, 10 numbers of main signages and 13 numbers of facility signages in fully assembled condition along with lighting poles, FRP components and poly carbonate boards were seized. This showed that the signages .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nai to IOC Vijayawada. This document is relied on for the purpose of showing that complete signages has been transported. The further reliance on the letter dated 27.2.1999 addressed to RITES by the Managing Director of Virgo shows that 330 signages were to be fabricated, inspected, transported and erected in an year's time. The various other documents that have been set out in the order of the Tribunal regarding the nature of transaction clearly established that full sets of signages were m .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

on the work order placed on M/s.Venkateswara Fibre Glass Industries dated 25.11.1999 and 25.1.2000, wherein it was stated that free delivery may be given at out works at Chennai - 58. All these documents were relied on by the Commissioner and the Tribunal to come to the conclusion that signages were sent in sets for erection at various sites, supported by erection report dated 13.7.2000. 14. In paragraph 9 of the order, the Tribunal rejected the plea raised by the appellant that sign poles alone .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ame were erected using also the components received directly at the site from their sub-contractors, the appellants have not succeeded in their effort in view of the documentary evidence pointing to a different factual situation as found by the Commissioner." 15. The statement of the Senior Engineer of RITES and IOC clearly justified the stand of the Department that they had manufactured the goods at the factory. By distinguishing the decisions in the case of Hyderabad Race Club, Malakpet, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ant case the complete signage is movable and is installed by fixing it on a concrete foundation. These can be detached and shifted to another location without damaging them. The signage is fixed to earth like the paper machines considered in Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd. case. Signage is complete before fixing on the concrete platform. The facts of the judicial authorities relied on by the appellants are therefore different and their ratio inapplicable to the facts of the instant case. 16. In fine, af .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

are capable of being assembled at the premises of the appellants and then transferred to the site to its erection after dismantling the same. The signages do not emerge as an immovable property on assembly or erection. They have base plates of steel with provision to fit them on bolts of the concrete foundation. These are not like a turbo alternator, parts of which are separately aligned and fixed on a concrete base to bring into existence the turbo alternator and could not be removed as turbo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

cost alone. As a result of this finding, the Tribunal confirmed the impugned order demanding duty on the consideration realized by Virgo for manufacture and erection of signages. The Tribunal has also confirmed the demand of duty invoking larger period as well as penalty imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act. However, the Tribunal held the since penalty was imposed under Section 11AC, penalty under Section 173Q was uncalled for. 18. In this background, the present appeal has been .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

. Thus, a perusal of the definitions given in various dictionaries shows that ordinarily 'furniture' refers to movable items such as desks, tables, chairs, required for use or ornamentation in a house or office. Thus, ordinarily furniture is not something immovable or something which is fixed in a position which can be removed only by cannibalizing. We agree with learned Counsel for the appellants that the latter are fixtures and not furniture. 16. Several of the items in question in the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t and other items which are ordinarily immovable or cannot be removed without cannibalizing are not furniture. However, items like tables, desks, chairs etc. are furniture and hence excisable." 19. The facts in the present case are different. Here, the findings of the Commissioner as well as the Tribunal are that the signages are capable of movable and are installed by fixing it on a concrete foundation and can be detached and shifted to another location without damaging them. Therefore, th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version