TMI Blog2005 (9) TMI 192X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, [ 1999 (3) TMI 100 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI] case duty liability should be calculated. The other issues raised in the appeal as well as before the Commissioner are covered against the appellant in their own case as well as in the [ 2001 (1) TMI 189 - CEGAT, KOLKATA] and [ 2003 (7) TMI 155 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] . We, therefore, reject all other contentions raised in the appeal memorandum except the one in regard to computation of proper duty (cum-duty price and computation thereof). For this purpose the matter needs to be sent back to adjudicating authority for proper computation. He shall do so after giving an opportunity to M/s. IS of being heard. On the issue of penalty under Rule 209A it was argued that the appellants did not knowingly conce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wooden and steel falling under Chapters 44 and 94 of the Schedule to CETA. In response to a tender floated by M/s. Etcetra Design Cell, M/s. IS agreed to undertake to make furniture, Plaster of Paris work and interior painting job for total sum of Rs. 54 lakhs. The scope of work was increased later as the work progressed. M/s. IS executed the job at the site belonging to M/s. Omsagar Engineering Pvt. Ltd. The Officers got wind of the fact that M/s. IS was manufacturing furniture and clearing it without payment of duty. They searched the premises of M/s. Omsagar Engineering Works seized some documents and the furniture made by M/s. IS, searched the premises of M/s. Etcetra Design and seized some documents from there as well and finally sear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -2005 held that the activity carried out at site belonging to another person amounted to manufacture of furniture liable to excise duty. The Tribunal in the case cited supra followed its earlier decision on the same issue. We hold that M/s. IS manufactured excisable goods liable to Central Excise Duty. In this impugned order the Commissioner gave the benefit of Notification No. 48/87, dated 1st March, 1987 to all doors, other than flush doors, made by the appellant, deducted the cost of repairs carried out by the manufacturer from the total assessable value and excluded the value of item which came into existence only after they were permanently fixed to the walls, following the ratio of Supreme Court's decision in the case of Sirpur Pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... after giving an opportunity to M/s. IS of being heard. Appeal of M/s. Omsagar Engineering Pvt. Ltd. : 6. The Commissioner imposed a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs under Rule 209A on the appellant. Confiscated the furniture and allowed it to be redeemed on payment of fine of Rs. 1 lakh. He further appropriated the amount deposited by the appellant towards duty and adjusted the liability arising out of the impugned order. 7. On the issue of penalty under Rule 209A it was argued that the appellants did not knowingly concern themselves in dealing with goods, which are liable to confiscation and therefore no penalty should be imposed on them under 209A. As against this, the Revenue argues that M/s. Omsagar could not have entertained a bona fide belief ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
