Tribunal allows appeals, finding no excisable goods manufacture. Commissioner's duty demand and penalties overturned.

The appeals were allowed by the Tribunal, granting relief to the appellant. The Tribunal held that the activities at the premises did not involve the manufacture of excisable goods as the final products were assembled on-site and did not exist as commercial products in a factory. Therefore, the duty demand imposed by the Commissioner was deemed unsustainable, and the penalties were unjustified. The Tribunal referred to a previous case involving a civil contractor to support its decision, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellant and setting aside the duty demand and penalties.

---

---

Issues involved: Determination of excise duty liability on multiple units operating from the same premises and applicability of small scale exemption.

Summary:
The appeals were filed against the order of the Commissioner denying small scale exemption for clearances made by multiple units operating from the same premises. The Commissioner ordered clubbing of clearances made by all units and treating them as clearances by a single manufacturing unit. Duty demand and penalties were imposed based on this decision.

The appellant argued that the activities at the premises involved only initial processes on aluminum sections and sheets, with further substantial processes carried out at customer sites, resulting in the creation of immovable goods. Citing a Tribunal decision in a similar case, the appellant contended that no duty should be levied on products leaving the premises.

After considering submissions from both sides, the Tribunal referred to a previous case involving a civil contractor manufacturing curtain walls. It was noted that the construction process at the site did not involve the manufacture of excisable goods as the final products were assembled on-site and did not exist as commercial products in a factory. Relying on this precedent, the Tribunal allowed the appeals, stating that the duty demand was not sustainable and penalties were not justified.

In conclusion, the appeals were allowed with consequential relief, following the precedent set in the referenced case.

---