TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (5) TMI 108
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Bangalore -I Rs. 49,98,655/- Rs. 49,98,655/- under Sec. 11AC + Rs. 12,00,00/- u/r 173Q/25 of CE Rules 1944/2001/2002 2. E/145/04 MD -do- -do- NIL Rs. 1,00,000/- u/r 209A and 26 of CE Rules 1944/2001/2002 3. E/1302/04 Deptt. -do- CCE, Bangalore II - - 4. E/701/04 Company O/O No. 06/04 dated 26-3-2004 CCE, Hyderabad II Rs. 36,949/- Rs. 36,949/- under Sec. 11AC + Rs. 4,000/- u/r 173Q/25 of CE Rules, 1944/ 2001/2002 5. E/702/04 MD -do- -do- NIL Rs. 2,000/- u/r 209A and 26 of CE Rules 1944/ 2001/2002 6. E/703/04 Company O/O No. 05/04 dated 26-3-04 CCE, Hyderabad II Rs. 45,101/- Rs. 45,101/- under Sec. 11AC + Rs. 5,000/- u/r 173Q/25 of CE Rules 1944/ 2001/2002 7. E/704/04 MD -do- -do- NIL Rs. 3,000/- u/r 209A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Court. The appellants have strongly challenged the findings of the adjudicating authorities. 3. S/Shri G. Shivadas, and Anil Kumar, learned Advocates appeared on behalf of the appellants (Craft Interiors Ltd.) and Shri L. Narasimha Murthy, learned SDR appeared for Revenue. 4. The learned advocates adduced the following arguments. (i) The show cause notice proposed classification of all the goods in question under Chapter Sub-heading 9403 and demanded consequential duty. The appellant submitted that some of the items like flush doors, wooden doors, glass doors, are classifiable under Chapter 44 and Chapter 70 of the CETA, 1985 and do not fall under Chapter Sub-heading 94.03. Though the adjudicating authority accepted the submissions of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s, which emerge either as part of the moveable property or are erected stage by stage for completion. The following case laws were relied on : (a) Triveni Engineering & Industries Ltd. & Anr v. CCE & Anr. - 2000 (120) E.L.T. 273 (S.C.) (b) C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 58/1/2002-CX., dated 15-1-2002 - 2002 (139) E.L.T. T38 (c) TTG Industries Ltd. v. CCE - 2004 (167) E.L.T. 501 (S.C.) (d) Mahavir Aluminium Ltd. v. CCE - 2003 (153) E.L.T. 65 (e) CCE v. Architecture Incorporated - [2005 (180) E.L.T. 166 (T)] = 2005 (98) ECC 654 (f) Lokhandawala Hotels P. Ltd. v. CCE - 2005 (182) E.L.T. 188 (g) GVK Industries Ltd. v. CCE - 2005 (182) E.L.T. 364 (iii) If the above items are excluded in the value of clearances, value, etc. of remaining....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be upheld by the Tribunal. 6. We have gone through the rival submissions. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore has given detailed findings with regard to different items whereas the Commissioner, Hyderabad has held that all the items merit classification under Chapter 9304 as 'furniture'. We shall examine the findings in respect of the disputed items and our findings will be applicable to the appeals against both the orders of the Commissioner, Hyderabad and Commissioner, Bangalore. The Commissioner, Bangalore in para 68 of his order has stated that the following items are moveable furniture classifiable under 9304 and liable to excise duty. He has also stated that there is no disagreement on this point. (a) Corner Table....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ory and are readily available in the market. They can be bought and ready to fix. Such workstations are classifiable under 9304. In his findings he has not stated whether the workstation in respect of the appellants is of the first or second kind which he has mentioned. The appellants' contention is that he had included the value of the workstations which in their opinion are formed at site. In view of the adjudicating authorities' finding that such workstations cannot be classified under 9304, we hold that the workstations are not excisable. We agree with the finding of the adjudicating authority in para 74 where he has held that partitions are immoveable property permanently fastened to the building and hence not excisable. We agr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Foot Rest. 10. While giving a finding on the excisability of storage cabinets running counters, large reception/conference table and workstation the Commissioner in para 82 has observed "it may be a fact that these items are unique to a building and or designed to suit the specification of the buildings and it may emerge as a piece by piece fabrication at the site and my understanding is that it is only for the sake of convenience it is fabricated at site to avoid the difficulty in transporting and handling if done elsewhere. What ultimately emerges on a piece by piece fabrication is a commodity known in the market by the name of table, counters, storage cabinets, book shelf, racks". We are in full agreement with the reasoning of the adjud....