TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (2) TMI 303
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es of M/s. Kapoor Lamp Shade Company (Manufacturing Unit) [hereinafter referred to as KLS (MU)], a partnership firm of Mrs. Kiran Kapoor and Sh. S. Kapoor. The duty demand and the penalty in this case are against KLS (FS). While KLS (MU) manufacture lamp shades and light fittings, the appellant-KLS (FS) procure various components of lamp shades and chandeliers from various sources including KLS (MU) and thereafter pack the same in cartons, put their logo on the cartons and also put the code number of the product. The department was of the view that this activity of the appellant amounts to manufacture of the lamps and light fittings covered by 9405.90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. It is on this basis that show cause notice dated 3....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Heard both sides. 3. Sh. B.L. Narasimhan, ld. Counsel for the appellant, pleaded that the appellant unit is a factory shop located in a part of factory of KLS (MU), that KLS (MU) manufacture various components of lamp shades and chandeliers and supply the same to various customers along with bought out items, that KLS (MU) are paying duty on the goods being cleared by them after availing the SSI exemption; that so far as the appellant is concerned, they are only a shop engaged in buying of various components of decorative lamp shades, chandeliers and light fittings from various sources and selling the same, that the appellant after buying the components of lamp shades and chandlers/light fittings pack the same in cartoons, put their logo ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se that in any case, the duty demand for the period from 1 /1/1998 to 31/3/2000 raised by the Show Cause Notice dated 31/1/2003 is totally time barred as extended limitation period under proviso to section 11 A(1) of the Central Excise Act,1944 is not applicable to this case for the reason that setting up of factory retail shop in the factory premises of KLS (MU) had been intimated to the department under its letter dated 3/4/1989 wherein KLS (MU) enclosing their approved ground plant had intimated the Range Superintendent that a section of the factory premises is being leased to KLS (FS) which would be conducting trading activity for selling the products manufactured by them and others products from the market, that, therefore, Department ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the appellant firm is described in para 5 of the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (appeals) wherein it is mentioned that the appellants were procuring the metal/brass parts, fabricated metal items and capsule mirrors, polythene tubes and packing materials, lamp shade, glass shades, decorative glasses and other items for lamp shades and light fittings. There is also a finding that all the components had been got manufactured with a specific design to match the design of the finished item and a specific item number or code number was put at the bottom of each item and cleared with brand name, logo and price tag in a cartoon as finished item. Thus, it is clear that appellant do not manufacture any component of lamp shade/chandeliers....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....upra) are squarely applicable to the facts of this case as in this case the appellant merely procured various components/parts of lamp shades and other light fittings and packed the same in card boxes and put their logo. In view of this, we hold that the activity of the appellant does not amount to manufacture and as such the duty demand is not sustainable on merits. 6. Even on limitation also, the duty demand is not sustainable as it is seen that KLS (MU) vide its letter dated 3/4/1989 addressed to Superintendent had intimated department that a part of the factory premises is being leased to another firm which would be conducting trading activity of the retailing of the goods sold to them and other goods purchased by them from the market.....