1999 (1) TMI 151

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....abricated buildings manufactured by the appellants herein, confiscated 5 steel tubular shelters seized from the appellants factory on 28-12-1988 with option to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 10,000/- and imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- for contravention of Rule 173-Q and Rule 226 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 2. We have heard Shri K. Kumar, learned Advocate for the appellants and Shri A.M. Tilak, learned DR. Our findings are recorded herein : (I) Classification of goods in dispute : We find that the appellants had entered into a contract with the appellants for supply of 73 Storage Shelters against supply order No. 21788, according to which they had to supply pre-fabricated steel tubular shelters complete in ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....T sub-heading 9406.00 in view of Note 4 to Chapter 94 which sets out that "for the purpose of Heading 94.06, the expression 'pre-fabricated building' means buildings which are finished in the factory or put up as elements, presented together, to be assembled on site, such as housing or work site accommodation, offices, schools, shops, sheds, garages or similar buildings". In other words, a clearance of pre-fabricated buildings can be in knocked down condition and assembled at site by welding etc. The submission of the appellants that since they supplied different components on different dates, it would not amount to presenting together of elements, has no bearing on the classification under CET sub-heading 94.06 since supply of goods fallin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....relied upon by the learned Counsel on this point are distinguishable. In the case of Collector of Central Excise, Meerut v. Friction Material - 1996 (86) E.L.T. 685, the respondents supplied clutch facing/brakelinings manufactured by them alongwith rivets which are bought out items and the Tribunal held that rivet is not a part or component of clutch facing or brakelining and therefore, its value is not to be included in the assessable value of the manufactured goods. In the case of Collector of Central Excise, Bombay v. Maharashtra Electronics Corporation Ltd. reported in [1998 (104) E.L.T. 411], the Tribunal held that value of accessories such as head phone, microphone and carry bag etc. supplied along with the tape recorders are no....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....CET sub-heading 9406.00). It is not a case of correct description of goods but incorrect classification of goods but wrong description of goods with wrong classification. Viewed from this angle, the extended period of limitation is available to the Department in this case. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Cosmetic Dye Chemical v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay reported in [1995 (75) E.L.T. 721 S.C.] cited by the learned Counsel is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case where the department has alleged mis-declaration with intention to evade payment of duty. Similarly the other decision cited by the learned Counsel viz the Tribunal's order in the case of Engg. & Commercial Agencies Ltd. v. Col....