2022 (5) TMI 747

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....oner of Central Excise Mumbai-II vide his above noted order is assailed in this appeal. 2. Briefly stated the fact of the case is that Appellant is engaged in the business of interior designing and furnishing. Search operation was conducted in its premises on 12.01.1998 and it was noticed that Appellant had exceeded turnover of small scale exemption limit of Rs.30,00,000/- and was found to have been involved in manufacturing of various types of furniture without obtaining Central Excise registration, following its procedure and without paying the required duty. Show-cause notice was accordingly issued on 09.07.1998 with extended period covering the financial year from 1993-94 to 1997 -98. During the relevant period normal period as provi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hich were erected at site and not removable cannot be held to be furniture items. He also submitted that the issue has also been settled in respect of removable furniture fixed piece by piece at site by this Tribunal in Inter scape Vs. CCE, Calcutta-I reported in 2001 (135) ELT 942 (Tri.-Kolkata) and the moveable items likes tables, chairs, stools, trolleys, panel etc. allegedly recovered during search operation would not be equated with items sold away individually since despite several request made by the Appellant to the concern Commissionerate, seized invoices were not supplied to the Appellant to put forth its defence, for which the demand is not sustainable for the normal period also and there was no malafide intention forthcoming in ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....readjudication for the normal period in the light of the ratio set in the judgment of Craft Interiors Pvt. Ltd. and Inter scape, both cited supra. But in the instant case, in view of the discussions held above and observation made by us, with the consent and concurrence of both the parties, instead of remanding it back we would invoked Rule 41 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rule, 1982 in putting an end to the litigation that commenced way back in the early 1990's only for the purpose of re-computation for the normal period when from the evidence on record it is quite evident that appellant had already paid Rs.3,50,000/- during investigation which is much higher than the entire demand raised for the normal period that would also meet the interest....