2018 (11) TMI 1032

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....une - I. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that, during the relevant period, from 1st April, 2005 to 31st December 2008 alleging that the appellant had manufactured and cleared "Greenhouse"/ "Polyhouse" from their factory and assembled at site, demand notice was issued to them for recovery of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 67,14,858/- along with interest and penalty. 3. On adjudication, the demand was confirmed with interest and penalty of Rs. 5.00 lakhs was imposed on the assessee-appellant under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Aggrieved by the confirmation of the demand with interest and penalty, the assessee is in appeal, whereas Revenue filed the appeal for reduction in penalty to Rs. 5.00 lakh. 4. L....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....efore, demanding duty again on the assembly of Greenhouse/Polyhouse at site considering that such activity amounts to "manufacture" would result into charging tax twice on the same activity/goods. He has fairly submitted that the adjudication order dated 25/10/2011 confirming the service tax liability was passed subsequent to the present impugned order. 5. Per contra, Learned Authorised Representative for Revenue ha submitted that, though the appellant were engaged in the manufacture of greenhouse/poly house, but they failed to discharge appropriate excise duty on the same during the relevant period. The Learned Authorised Representative has further submitted that appellant used to split the total price/consideration into two invoices; i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he same in knocked down condition to the site for assembly where ultimately the Greenhouse/Polyhouse were erected. The assessee-appellant, on the other hand, claimed that they have carried out only the job of erection and commissioning for which service tax has been discharged by them on the bought out materials, subjected to processes which does not amount to manufacture. Therefore, the allegation of the department that the greenhouse/poly house were assembled at site resulting into manufacture of excisable goods falling under chapter-sub-heading 9406 0019 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 is unsustainable. From the records, we find that separate show cause notices were issued to the appellant, for the same period, demanding service tax o....