TMI Blog2008 (1) TMI 191X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... MEMBER (T) Cross Objection Nos. 137-139 142/2006 [Order Per Shri T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T)]-1. Revenue has filed this appeal against the Order-in-Original No. 4/2004 dated 18.3.2004 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore. 2. The respondents are engaged in interior designing work and are manufactures of various furniture items. Based on the information that they are engaged in the manufacture and clearance of various types of furniture without payment of Central Excise duty and without following any Central Excise procedure, the officers of the Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence conducted the very detailed investigation and based on the investigation prima facie , a case was established ag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... D at their customer's premises amounts to manufacture and the resultant products i.e. furniture/modular stations etc. are classifiable under CSH.9403.00 of CETA, 1985 and the same are to be treated as goods manufactured by the assessees, though a part of the manufacturing activity took place in the premises of the customers. Having observed as above, the Commissioner should not have allowed the benefit of the Notification. No. 125/84-Central Excise dt. 26.05.1984 to the goods manufactured by the assessee in the premises of EOUs. This is because the said Notification exempts the excisable goods produced or manufactured in a 100% EOU. In other words, the exemption under the said Notification is available only to the goods manufactured by a 10 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fication for paying the duty liability in case of default by the EOU. Sicne the prescribed procedures have not been followed either by the EOU or by M/s. RSA, the question of allowing the Notification 1/95 Central Excise dated 2.1.1995 does not arise. Therefore the adjudicating authority should have confirmed the duty liability in respect of clearances made to EOU's. Instead the Commissioner has erroneously allowed the benefit of Notification 125/84 dated 26.05.1984 which does not provide for any safeguard to the Revenue in case of default by the EOU's. As per the EXIM Policy the EOU is permitted to manufacture and export goods specified in the Letter of Permission (LOP)/Letter of Intent (LOI). Thus the benefit of the Notification 125/84 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cation 125/84 dated 26.05.84 as discussed above. Further, these furniture/modular stations are not raw materials for manufacture of the finished products by the EOU's mentioned by the assessees. Hence these furniture/modular stations assembled in the premises of EOU's by the assessee's companies cannot be exempted from levy of excise duty by treating them as clearance to EOU's, as these are meant for use in the office premises of the EOU's and are not meant for consumption in the manufacture of the export product. In the Show Cause Notice, there is a proposal for impositon of penalties under Section 11 AC of CEA, 1944 and under rules 52A, 173Q, 210 of CER 1944 and also under Rule 209A of the CER, 1944. Whereas, there is no finding of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation No. 125/84-CE. The Respondents submit that the Appellant in the impugned order at page 43-para 91.4 records the names of the 100% EOU concerns. The Respondents submit that the above exemption is available when the goods are manufactured in the 100% EOU . It is immaterial as to who manufactures them, it may be by the EOU itself, or any other person engaged by the EOU. The Apex Court has held that the supplier of material is not the manufacturer, but the actual maker is the manufacturer although not the owner of the material, and the Respondents submit that the Notification 125/84-Central Excise is a "premises bases" Notification, applicable to all goods manufactured in an EOU . It should not be given a narrow interpretation as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as to be interpreted on its wording and no words, not used in the Notification, can be added . Copies of the above decisions are enclosed." Notification No.125/84 - C.E., dated 26.05.1984 is reproduced below: "GOODS PRODUCED IN A HUNDRED PER CENT EXPORT - ORIENTED UNDERTAKING In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (1) of rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1994, the Central Government hereby exempts all excisable goods produced or manufactured in a hundred per cent export-oriented undertaking from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon under section 3 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (1 of 1944): Provided that the exemption contained in this notification shall not apply to such goods if allowed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
