TMI Blog2005 (12) TMI 135X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uation and the facts are identical. An issue was also made on the valuation. It was argued that the Commissioner arrived at the revised value behind the appellants back. This does not appear to be so. The appellant raised disputes in regard to valuation before the Commissioner during the course of hearing. To verify the veracity of the issues raised, the Commissioner asked the investigating Officers to re-scrutinize the figures mentioned in the various annexures to the show cause notice. On the basis of such scrutiny the Commissioner quantified the demand. The appellants' claim that the Commissioner did some thing behind their back is not correct. The appellants' attempt to raise fresh issues on valuation are rejected. The appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are printed, a box or a case with a permanent light fitting, into which the sheet is fitted. When illuminated (switched on) the glow sign will encourage or discourage the viewer from doing or not doing a particular thing, depending on what is printed on the sheet. The appellants are accused of manufacturing such signboards and clearing them without payment of duty. Extended period of limitation is involved. The period invoked is 1997-98 and 1998-99. A sum of Rs. 2,39,452.39 (Rupees Two lacs thirty-nine thousand four hundred fifty-two and paise thirty-nine only) was demanded under proviso to Section 11A an equal amount of penalty was imposed under Section 11AC and interest was demanded. Hence this appeal 2. Heard both sides 3. M/s. TSA rece ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r making machine which is excisable. He rejected the theory of the appellants that they did not manufacture the Tin/Aluminium box in which the printed sheet is fitted and therefore did not manufacture the glow sign. The Commissioner's contention is that when bought out items are fitted/assembled at site manufacture take place (Narne Tuleman refers). 4. The appellants blow hot and cold before us. At times, they admit that they manufactured glow signs falling under Chapter Heading 94.05 but dispute the valuation arrived at by the Commissioner. They submit that a sum of Rs.1,61,000/- (Rupees One lac sixty-one thousand only) alone is payable for the year 1998-99 whereas the Commissioner demanded Rs. 2,07,490/- (Rupees Two lacs seven thousand fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed upon Narne Tuleman (Supra) as the situation and the facts are identical with the ones in Narne Tuleman. When installation of glow signs at site was not undertaken by the appellants, they were removing the glow signs in a dismantled condition for ease of transport. This does not mean that excisable goods falling under Chapter Heading 94.05 have not come into existence. The appellants billed for the glow signs and got paid for them. Their activity constituted manufacture of glow signs appropriately classifiable under Chapter Heading 94.05. 6. An issue was also made on the valuation. It was argued that the Commissioner arrived at the revised value behind the appellants back. This does not appear to be so. The appellant raised disputes in re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
