By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, DEC 30, 2015: THE appellant had placed an order for various office furniture from M/s Interscape and the said furniture was manufactured and installed in the factory/office premises of the appellant.

Holding that a few of these items would amount to manufacture, M/s Interscape was issued a SCN along with SCN to the appellant directing them to show cause as to why demand of duty on such goods be not confirmed as being a manufactured goods and the goods which were seized be not confiscated respectively.

The adjudicating authority confirmed the duty demand on M/s Interscape along with interest and imposed penalties.

By the impugned order, the CCE, Mumbai confiscated the seized goods [various purchases of furniture made by appellant from M/s Interscape ] and has extended an option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs.2.25 lakhs.

The appellant is before the CESTAT against this order of confiscation/imposition of redemption fine.

The Bench observed -

"…The very same order-in-original, which is before us, was challenged by M/s Interscape before the Tribunal in appeal No. E/311 to 314/2007. The said appeals were allowed by the bench by final order No. A/3007-3010/15/EB dated 08/09/2015 - 2015-TIOL-2785-CESTAT-MUM holding that: x x x

4. It can be seen from the above reproduced portion that the entire duty liability has been set aside by the Tribunal as was confirmed against M/s Interscape. In our view, if the entire duty liability has been set aside, confiscation of the goods which are seized from the appellant's premises, does not stand good any more. In view of the fact that demand of duty, holding that the goods were manufactured and liable to duty, has been set aside and as the said order is not unconnected from the impugned order, nothing survives for holding that the goods are liable to confiscation."

Holding that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the confiscation as ordered by the impugned order is unsustainable, the same was set aside and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

(See 2015-TIOL-2821-CESTAT-MUM)