2005 (9) TMI 192

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... undertake to make furniture, Plaster of Paris work and interior painting job for total sum of Rs. 54 lakhs. The scope of work was increased later as the work progressed. M/s. IS executed the job at the site belonging to M/s. Omsagar Engineering Pvt. Ltd. The Officers got wind of the fact that M/s. IS was manufacturing furniture and clearing it without payment of duty. They searched the premises of M/s. Omsagar Engineering Works seized some documents and the furniture made by M/s. IS, searched the premises of M/s. Etcetra Design and seized some documents from there as well and finally searched the premises of M/s. IS and recovered more documents. On the basic of various statements made by all concerned, the documents seized, it was alleged ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....unal in the case cited supra followed its earlier decision on the same issue. We hold that M/s. IS manufactured excisable goods liable to Central Excise Duty. In this impugned order the Commissioner gave the benefit of Notification No. 48/87, dated 1st March, 1987 to all doors, other than flush doors, made by the  appellant, deducted the cost of repairs carried out by the manufacturer from the total assessable value and excluded the value of item which came into existence only after they were permanently fixed to the walls, following the ratio of Supreme Court's decision in the case of Sirpur Paper Mills. 5. In the absence of individual prices for various articles manufactured by the appellant, the Commissioner arrived at the as....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs under Rule 209A on the appellant. Confiscated the furniture and allowed it to be redeemed on payment of fine of Rs. 1 lakh. He further appropriated the amount deposited by the appellant towards duty and adjusted the liability arising out of the impugned order. 7. On the issue of penalty under Rule 209A it was argued that the appellants did not knowingly concern themselves in dealing with goods, which are liable to confiscation and therefore no penalty should be imposed on them under 209A. As against this, the Revenue argues that M/s. Omsagar could not have entertained a bona fide belief that furniture is not excisable. They were aware of the fact that furniture ordered by them was dutiable. The said goods were b....