2018 (7) TMI 989

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of the premises of the respondents, it appeared that they had manufactured and cleared structures, parts and accessories, front display board to their customers during the financial year 2007-08 without charging excise duty even after crossing SSI limit of Rs. 1.5 crores for the year 2007-08 in the month of June, 2007 itself. Show Cause Notice was issued proposing to demand duty of Rs. 19,84,723/- along with interest and for imposing penalties. After due process of law, the Original Authority confirmed the demand along with interest and imposed equal penalty besides appropriating a sum of Rs. 11.50 lakhs paid by the respondents towards the due liability. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the demand. Hence, the Department is n....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ation of the Department is that the appellants have manufactured and cleared structures (iron and steel) falling under CETSH 73089090 and accessories falling under CETSH 87089000 to the customers, such as M/s. Hyundai Motors India Ltd, without paying excise duty. It is their case that the frames fabricated and brought to the site of the customer and frames fabricated on the site of erection, both are goods manufactured by the respondents and, therefore, attract central excise duty. In the reply to Show Cause Notice, the respondents have submitted that they are engaged in steel fabrication works and erection/commissioning at factory site. They get Work Contract from their customers. They pay service tax under Works Contract Services. All the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nal in the case of CC & CE Hyderabad-III Vs. Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. 2017 (358) E.L.T. 516 (Tri. - Hyd.), had occasion to analyse a similar issue. The facts in the said case was that the contract entered was for erection of structures forming part of thermal plant as per requirement of the drawings of the customer at the customer's site. The Tribunal, in the said case, after referring to the decision in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra (supra), held that the Circular No. 58/1/2002 - C. Ex. Dt. 15.01.2002 would apply and thus, dismissed the appeal filed by the Department. In the present case, it is not clear as to how much portion of the demand would relate to structures that are fabricated/erected at the site of the customer.....