By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, JAN 29, 2014: THIS is a Revenue appeal filed in the year 2004 against an order passed by the Commissioner(Appeals), but obviously, in favour of the assessee.

The facts of the case are that a SCN was issued to the assessee respondent on the ground that they are engaged in the manufacture of office furniture system falling under Chapter Heading 9403 of the Tariff. Inasmuch as the respondents were receiving parts of the furniture and assembling the same at site, which according to Revenue amounts to manufacture.

The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and imposed penalty.

The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the demand on the ground that the respondents were only assembling the duty paid parts of the furniture as the furniture was manufactured by M/s. Kemp & Co. and cleared on payment of duty by classifying the same under Chapter Heading 9403 of the Tariff and the demand from the respondents in the same heading only on the ground that the respondents were assembling the furniture at site was not sustainable.

In the grounds of appeal, the Revenue contends that the respondents were not receiving complete parts of the furniture and, therefore, the assembly of furniture by the respondent amounts to manufacture.

The Bench observed -

"5. …We find that there is no allegation in the show cause notice that the respondents were not receiving all the parts of the furniture. In fact the manufacturer has paid duty under Chapter Heading 9403 of the Tariff which covers ‘other furniture'. The furniture manufactured was cleared in CKD condition for ease of transportation and the respondents were only assembling the parts of the furniture at site. In view of this we find no infirmity in the impugned order. The appeal is dismissed."

In passing: Hope the matter ends. After all, it took almost a decade to reach here.

(See 2014-TIOL-144-CESTAT-MUM)