TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (12) TMI 585
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f textile fabrics as well non-textile items (plastic). Since the roller blinds of textile materials are fully exempt from duty, in this case, the dispute is only about the roller blinds of non-textile materials. The aluminium sections are cut to the required size and after fixing the plastic brackets or metal brackets on the wall, the sections are fixed on which the roller blinds/vertical blinds are mounted. The department was of the view that the rollers or vertical blinds are chargeable to duty. Since the appellant were not paying any central excise duty, a show cause notice dated 30.10.2009 was issued to them for demand of short paid duty amounting to Rs.59,35,572/- for the period 2005-2006 to 2008-2009 along with interest and also for i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....goods would be classifiable. 1.3 The matter was adjudicated de novo by the Commissioner vide order-in-original dated 4.5.2012 by which the Commissioner held that roller/vertical blinds made of fabrics of Chapter 39 are classifiable under sub-heading 3925 2000, roller/vertical blinds made out of the fabrics of Chapter 52 to 59 are classifiable under sub-heading 630300 and the roller blinds of fabrics falling under Chapter 70 are classifiable under sub-heading no.70199000 of the Tariff. The Commissioner by this order confirmed the duty demand of Rs.44,66,863/- along with interest and besides this, while imposed penalty of equal amount on the appellant company under Section 11AC, he imposed penalty of Rs.5 Lakh on Shri Arun Jasuja, General Ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce vertical/roller blind after installation become part of the immovable property, there is no manufacturing involved, that the appellant during the period of dispute, were treating their activity as services and were registered with central excise authorities for payment of service tax and till July, 2007 they were paying service tax under "installation service" and from July, 2007 onwards, they were paying service tax under works control service, that same activity cannot be treated as service as well as manufacturing, that service tax paid by the appellant during the period of dispute is about Rs.14 Lakhs while during investigation, an amount of Rs.15 lakhs had been paid, that even if the appellant's activity is treated as manufacture an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f. She also emphasized that the Appellant's plea that the roller /vertical blinders after installation become part of immovable property is not correct as the blinds can be shifted to another location and, therefore, the same are goods. She also pleaded that though the appellant were registered with the central excise department as service tax assessee, but they had never disclosed that they are manufacturing the roller/vertical blinds chargeable to central excise duty and hence, it cannot be said that they had disclosed all the facts to the department and in view of this, longer limitation period under proviso to Section 11A(1) has been correctly invoked and penalty under Section 11AC had been correctly imposed. She, therefore, pleaded tha....