TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (6) TMI 181
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....DR, appeared for the Revenue. 3. We heard both sides. 4. The appellant, M/s. Interscape, were having a small carpentry shop at Mumbai where they used to undertake manufacture of goods classifiable under Chapter Nos. 44 and 94 and the said premises was registered under the Central Excise Rules. They also undertook various jobs of furnishing the premises of the clients as per the designs and requirements. In the present case, they accepted the order of tender of M/s. Park Hotel, Beach Road, Vizag. After accepting the job for furnishing the premises of M/s. Park, it is stated that they had sub-letted the contract to two to three labour contractors who are based in Mumbai. In other words, it was urged by the appellant that they did not have a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xamining the following :- "(a) The issues pertaining to the wardrobe, bar counters and reception counter to be goods or not. The re-examination had to be in the light of judgment in Triveni Engineering & Inds. Ltd. & Board Circular cited by the appellants. (b) Whether the sub-contractors were the manufacturers for the work done by them; and (c) The aspect pertaining to time barred nature of the demand." Consequent to this Bench's order dated 8-4-2004, the Commissioner took up the de novo adjudication and passed the impugned order. In the impugned order, the Commissioner has slightly reduced the demand holding that as far as Bar Counter and Reception Counter were concerned, they would be immovable. In any case, he confirmed a demand of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng the fact that S. 11AB was not in existence during the period under adjudication and hence, interest u/s. 11AB could not have been levied at all. Even the previous order of the Commissioner dt. 16-3-2000 had not levied interest for this reason. (viii) Increasing the penalty under Rule 173Q from Rs. 2,00,000/- to Rs. 5,00,000/- without any reason." 5. On a very careful consideration of the issue, a fundamental point has not been properly examined by the learned Commissioner. It is seen that the appellant do not have any manufacturing facility. Even though they had under taken to furnish the premises of M/s. Park, they had sub-contracted the entire work to other sub-contractors and it is seen that the sub-contractors billed the appellant ....