TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (3) TMI 258
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the record resumed during the visit, and recording the statements of various personnel including Sh. Vijay Singhvi, Factory Manager and Authorised Signatory and Sh. D. I. Desarda, Sr. Vice President (Taxation), Department issued show cause notice dated 15.11.2016. After the due process of adjudication the impugned order came to be passed in which the adjudicating authority held that the appellant has manufactured and supplied "green houses" in ready to assemble condition to Rajasthan Horticulture Development Society, Directorate of Horticulture, Jaipur. The Central Excise duty on such goods to the extent of Rs. 3,20,99,394/- was demanded alongwith interest and penalty of equal amount. Penalty was also imposed to the extent of Rs. 50 lakhs on Sh. D. I. Desarda, Sr. V.P. (Taxation) and Rs. 10 lakhs on Sh. Vijay Singhvi, Factory Manager and A.S. under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Aggrieved by the impugned order, appeals have been filed by the assessee as well as the other company employees who have been penalised. 3. With the above background, we heard Sh. M. K. Gupta, ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant as well as Sh. R. K. Mishra, ld. AR representin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ents. But, he fairly admitted that the classification of the goods fabricated by the appellant may not correctly fall under CETH 84249000 as claimed by the appellant. (vi) He also submitted that the demand is time barred since the appellant's unit has been regularly audited by the department internal audit. (vii) As an alternate plea, he also submitted that in case the entire demand is upheld, the benefit of cum duty price may be extended to the appellant. He further submitted that the appellant, in such a case will also be eligible for the cenvat credit on the inputs procured from outside. 5. Ld. AR vehemently justified the impugned order. He argued that the facts of the case are different from what has been submitted by the ld. Counsel representing the appellant. He referred to the statements recorded from Sh. Vijay Singhvi and submitted that he has categorically admitted that what has been supplied by the appellant are green houses in ready for assembly form. The depot where the bought out components are said to have been received is nothing but fictitious and it is on record that all the bought out components have been received in the factory of the appella....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....similar jet projecting machines..... -Other appliances: 8424 81 00 --Agricultural or horticulture .............................. 8424 89 --Other: 8424 89 19 ---Painting equipment, including electrostatic phosphating and powder coating equipment. 8424 89 20 --- Industrial bellows.................................... 8424 89 90 ---Other......................................................... 8424 90 00 -Parts............................................................. Tariff item Description of goods (1) (2) 9406 Prefabricated buildings 0406 00 -prefabricated buildings ---Green houses: 0406 00 11 ---Green house - in ready to assemble sets............ 9406 00 19 ---Other ............ ----Other............ 9406 00 91 --- Prefabricated housing material.................. 9406 00 92 ---Prefabricated construction for cold storage......... 9406 00 93 ---Silos for storing ensilage........................ 9406 00 99 ---Ot....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the goods supplied by the appellant, it is necessary to examine whether what has been supplied is pre-fabricated buildings in ready to assemble sets or only components of the pre-fabricated buildings. 10. The claim of the appellant before the adjudicating authority as well as in appeal is that only some of the components of the green houses has been fabricated in the appellant's factory and cleared to the depot. Hence, other bought out items are received by the appellant in their depots. Finally, it is claimed that all the components are assembled at site where it become immovable property. Hence, it has been submitted that the appellant, at the most should be required to pay excise duty only on the components fabricated within the factory. 11. The investigation undertaken by the Department has established that the facts are different. Sh. V. Singhvi, Factory Manager and A.S. has admitted in his statement that all components required for the green houses are transported to the designated site in ready to assemble conditions. The Department has also established that the appellant has deliberately issued invoices for supply in two parts - one for the items fabricated in their f....