9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1369X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l of the noticee on satisfying the test laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, i.e. the items cannot be dismantled without cannibalization. The CESTAT is the final fact finding authority and the issue was decided in favour of the party only on verification of the facts in that particular case. Therefore, the ratio of the Craft Interior case cannot be made applicable to all the instances wherein items are assembled at the customers' premises. The CESTAT after verifying the facts of that particular case before the Bench had come to the conclusion that the goods in question in that particular case could not have been dismantled without cannibalization. This ratio is applicable only to that case since the facts of each case can be different. In fact, even if the same category of goods belonging to the same party that were impugned before the Tribunal, were assembled in another premise, and if such goods would have been dismantled without cannibalization, then, even such goods would have been liable to duty. This is on account of the fact that the test as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not been fulfilled. As such, the Commissioner (Adjudication) should have examined each an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore the adjudicating authority has erred in concluding that the bought out items are not excisable and are outside the purview of levy of Central Excise duty. As for such items manufactured by the noticee, the adjudicating authority has held that though liable to duty, these items are entitled to exemption notification issued on the basis of value of clearances. When the other items are chargeable to duty as held herein before, there is no question of extending the benefit of such a notification to the items manufactured by the assessee which are akin to the bought out items. 2.3 Though the appeal separately discusses each of the item separately, we have only taken discussion in the appeal in respect of three items for testing the preposition made by the appeal in respect of consideration and non-verification on sample basis. 3.1 We have heard Dr. J.Harish, Ld. AR for the Department and Shri K. Parameswaram, Advocate for the respondents. 3.2 Arguing for the Revenue, the Ld. AR reiterated the submissions made in the appeal and stated that Commissioner had passed the order without verifying the relevant facts as we need to be done in terms of the Supreme Court Judgment in Civil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... panels as per the design of the workstation. The drawer units are also placed as per design. The tabletops, panels and drawer units are placed to constitute workstation". From the records before me, it is seen that a workstation can be broadly defined to be a work area separately enclosed by low height partitions / panels which contains a work desk / table top / work surface, with or without drawer units, cabinets, key board trays or pin up boards etc. One grievance of M/s. Monalisa is that the department has not made an effort to distinguish between modular workstations and site made workstations. M/s. Monalisa contends that a modular workstation is one which is completely factory made and is brought to the site as different components to be assembled overnight. It is their contention that they are not manufacturers of Modular workstations. In their opinion, few supplies made of workstations which are modular workstations cannot be considered as excisable goods and in any case the said turnover including with the other goods would be below the SSJ Exemption limit as was relevant at that point of time. In their final reply dated 27.7.2009, the Company has argued that the dismantlin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... part of the table and since they were site made & Permanently to the floor etc., they were not excisable. They have submitted in their reply dated 27.7.2009 that it is a bought out item which have l)en supplied as part of interior decoration jobs undertaken and cannot be considered as excisable in the hands of the Noticee Company as they have been only bought out and sold. Thus the entire value relating to such bought out items will have to be totally excluded thereto. The Noticee argued that the item is permanently fixed and considering the sic and nature of the items involved cannot be considered as furniture which is movable or marketable and no evidence of any nature which can be considered as furniture which is movable or marketable can be considered as fulfilling the Lest laid down by the Hon'ble CESTAT in the case of Craft Interiors Vs. CCE reported in 2006 (203) ELT 529, has been adduced by the department to substantiate this aspect. They argued that, credenza counters etc, could not be equated with general articles of furniture available in the market with the same name and this aspect of the matter accordingly should have been considered as vital and determinativ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
