TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (2) TMI 2
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fall for consideration in this appeal. The first issue is, as to whether or not the demand for payment of duty is barred by limitation, whereas the second issue is whether the items like chairs, beds, tables, desks, etc., affixed to the ground could be said to be immoveable assets and not liable to excise duty. The aforesaid two issues have arisen in the light of the rival submissions made on the basic facts of this appeal which are hereinafter being set out. 4. M/s. Mehta & Company, Mumbai (the "assessee") are engaged in the business of interior decoration. The assessee provides composite services including woodwork, furniture items etc. They entered into contracts with customers for doing these works as per their requirement and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y mentions that the assessee has quoted rates which include the excise duty and it had been made in the contract that the contractor would not have any claim subsequently after execution of the work for excise duty, sales tax etc. from M/s. Adyar Gate Hotels Limited. 8. A show cause notice under the Central Excise Act, 1944 [for short "the Act"] dated 15.05.2000 was issued to the respondent - M/s. Mehta & Company to show cause as to why: - (i) Duty of excise amounting to Rs. 62,94,910/- should not be demanded from them on the goods manufactured and cleared under Rule 9(2) of the Rules read with the proviso to section 11A (1) of the Act; 2 1 (ii) The amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- already paid under protest towards the duty of excise sho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he matter afresh and to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law by providing an effective hearing to the parties. Thereupon, the Commissioner, Central Excise & Customs, Visakhapatnam vide order dated 22.10.2003 confirmed the demand of Rs. 14,94,656/- with penalty of Rs. 7,47,328/- with interest as per Section 11 AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short "the Act") and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- under Rule 173Q. Aggrieved thereby the respondent filed an appeal before the Tribunal and vide order dt. 28.7.2008 the Tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Commissioner, Central Excise & Customs, Visakhapatnam under the impugned judgment and order as against which the present appeal was filed. 12. W....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ions of proviso is not satisfied in the present case, and therefore, it cannot be submitted that the demand is not barred by limitation. 15. We have considered the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties in the light of the records placed before us. So far as the issue with regard to limitation is concerned, since that goes to the root of the demand made, it is appropriate to deal with the same before we go into the second issue. 16. Section 11A of the Act empowers the Authority to demand excise duty in terms of the conditions laid down in the said provision as and when the pre-conditions mentioned therein are satisfied. 17. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that issuance of a ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....excise duty for the items as specifically mentioned in the said order passed. 20. A perusal of the said order would also indicate that no issue with regard to the demand raised by the appellant as time barred was either raised or discussed by the Commissioner. 21. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the Commissioner, an appeal was filed before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, however, held that the items fabricated by the respondent herein are permanently fixed to the walls and ground of the room and the same could not be removed from one place to another without causing much damage to them and without cannibalizations and consequently the said items cannot be considered as furniture in the light of the decision of this Court ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....emo issued by the appellant and also the summons issued, the hotel furnished its reply setting out the details of the work done by the appellant amounting to Rs. 991.66 lakhs and at that stage only the department came to know that the work order was to carry out the job for furniture also. A bare perusal of the records shows that the aforesaid reply was sent by the respondent on receipt of a letter issued by the Commissioner of Central Excise on 27.2.1997. If the period of limitation of five years is computed from the aforesaid date, the show cause notice having been issued on 15.5.2000, the demand made was clearly within the period of limitation as prescribed, which is five years. 25. So far as the second issue is concerned, we f....