TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (12) TMI 604
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng 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 these blinds were 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 imposition of penalty on the appellant company as well as on Shri Arun R. Jasuja, General Manager of the appellant company under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules. The show cause notice was adjudicated by the Commissioner vide order-in-original dated 30.11.2010 by which the duty demand of Rs. 59,35,572/- was confirmed against the appellant company under proviso to Section 11A (1) of the Central Excise Act, and Rs. 15 Lakhs paid by the appellant during investigation was appropriated towards this demand. Besides this, penalty of Rs. 59,35,577/- was imposed on the appellant company. A penalty of Rs. 10 Lakh was imposed on Shri Arun R. Jasuja under Rule 20 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 2.2. The appellant company as well as Shri Aru....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....otor is also fixed in the Aluminum tubes; that the Aluminum tubes are sent to the site where it is installed; that if it is motorized blind, the metal wires are connected to the power supply provided by the client. From the above method of installation of blinds, the Ld. Counsel submitted that the roller/vertical blinds came into existence at site; that these rollers/vertical blinds once installed, cannot be shifted to another place without being completely dismantled; that since 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 Contract Service; that the same activity cannot be treated as service as well as manufacture; that service tax paid by the appellant during the period of dispute is about Rs. 14 Lakhs. Further during investigation, an amount of Rs. 15 Lakhs had been paid; that even if the appellant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the already installed brackets. j. If blind is manual, then, chain is inserted into the tube plug/drives set. Thereafter, the „Tuning‟ is done by setting the chain limits with limit beads, to ensure smooth movement of the blind. k. If blind is motorized, the motor wires are connected to the power supply provided by the customer, and motor limit setting is done in terms of number of upwards and downwards rotation. l. At this stage, a complete blind comes into existence. m. A joint measurement is taken as the customer pays by final measurement. A completion certificate is signed by the customer signifying the completion of the job. n. Invoice is prepared based on the joint measurement and sent to the customer with signed measurement sheet and the completion certificate. 7. In the light of the above steps undertaken by the appellant, the controversy in the present case is whether the presented goods are considered as excisable goods liable to payment of excise duty or the whole process is to be considered as a service in which certain goods are supplied during the course of rendering service. The claim of the appellant is that the process does not amount to manu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is further seen that the Adjudicating Authority has permitted the Cenvat credit of the CVD paid on the imported inputs as well as the Central Excise Duty paid on locally procured components. 11. The appellant has also advanced the ground of time bar. It is the claim of the appellant that during the period of dispute they were registered with the Central Excise authority for payment of Service Tax and hence it cannot be said that it has suppressed the facts from the department. This aspect has been discussed by the Adjudicating Authority in para 34 of the impugned order as under :- 34. It was further contended that extended period is not invokable as there was no suppression of facts with an intention to evade payment of Central Excise duty. Therefore, demand beyond normal period of limitation is not invokable. The party has cited a number of judgments to justify their stand that once the figures are reflected in the balance sheet it does not amount to suppression of facts. Merely not disclosing the fact of manufacture of goods to the Department did not come under the category of suppression. Most of the judgments cited by the party relates to the Service Tax which is being calcul....