Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Shareline Hotels P. Ltd., Mohammadali ... vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 18 September, 2001
JUDGMENT J.H.Joglekar, Member (T)
1. These six applications relate to six appeals all filed against the single order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai now impugned before us. These applications are disposed of vide this common order.
2. M/s. Interscape are the manufactures and suppliers of furniture. They also undertake construction of partition etc. and installation of furnitures in sites on job work basis. Shri Vinod Naik is the proprietor of M/s. Interscape. Arvind Panchal & Bros are manufacturing similar articles. Shri Arvind Panchal is the proprietor thereof. The entire work involved in the present proceedings was done for and on behalf of M/s. Shoreline Hotels Pvt.Ltd. Shri M.A. Bhawani is the Director of M/s. Shoreline Hotels P.Ltd. On the same set of facts, it appears that another show cause notice had been issued to M/s. Hotel Marine Plazza( a unit owned by M/s. Shoreline Hotels Pvt.Ltd.) as well as to Shri M.A. Bharwani seeking recovery of duty of Rs. 50,12,786 and also alleging levy of penalty. The present proceedings involved demand of Rs. 74, 68, 740/- raised on M/s. Interscape and a number of contractors/sub-contractor engaged by them for executing the work. In her order, the Commissioner confirmed duty of Rs. 41,59,640/- from M/s. Interscape and of Rs. 91,555/- from M/s. Arvind Panchal & Bros. The demands made against other contractors/sub-contractors were dropped on the ground that the value of goods manufactured by them was within the exemption granted to SSI units. In the order, the ld.Commissioner imposed penalty on M/s. Interscape and M/s. Arvind panchal & Bros and also on Shri M.A. Bhawani. The goods manufactured and installed in the premises of M/s. Shoreline Hotels Pvt.Ltd. were confiscated but were allowed to be redeemed on a fine. The appeals and the applications arise out of this order.
3. We have heard Shri Waglay, for the applicants and Shri A.K.Jain for the Revenue. Shri Waglay submits that the present proceedings are invalid in as much as the same arises out of the second show cause notice issued on the same lines. He argued at length on that point citing certain case laws. On examination of the case laws and facts involved, we do not find a prima-facie case made out on this ground. We have also heard him on the ground that the assessee being under the impression that what they manufactured was handicraft more of the belief that they had not to pay duty. We do not find prima facie case in this argument either. Shri Waglay thereafter raised a number of grounds of which the duty was calculated in a wrong manner. He showed certain instances of arithmetical error. He also showed that although the order omits certain articles from the purview of the demand, their value had been added. In reply to a specific query, he submits that when all errors have taken into account, the demand of duty against M/s. Interscape would be roughly about Rs. 15 lakhs. It is his submission that even the on the demand confirmed against M/s Arvind Panchal & Brothers the recalculation is required done.
4. Prima facie, finding force in the submission of wrong calculation of demand, we direct M/s. Interscape to deposit a sum of Rs. 15 lakhs (Rupees fifteen lakhs only) within eight weeks from today as a pre-condition to the hearing of their appeal. On this deposit made, the requirement of pre-deposit of penalty imposed on M/s. Interscape and Shri Vinod Nailk shall be waived and their recovery stayed. The pre-deposit of duty by M/s. Arvind Panchal & Bros as also the penalty imposed on them, and on A.S.Panchal and M.A. Bhawani is waived and its recovery stayed during the pendency of these appeals. Compliance is to be reported on 22.11.01.
(Dictated in Court)