COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., HYDERABAD Vs. SANTOM ENTERPRISES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against order -in -appeal No. 154/2005 (H -III) C.E. dated 29 -8 -2005 vide which the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the order -in -original in challenge before him.

(2.) THE relevant facts that arise for consideration are that M/s. Santom Enterprises, 24 -110/2, IDA, Uppal, Hyderabad are manufacturers of FRP/PP Storage tanks, FRP/PP lining pipes and FRP roofing sheets falling under Chapter 39. Officers of Central Excise Department visited the appellants unit and found that there was another unit by name of Santom Industrial Liners (SIL) belonging to the same proprietor Sri M.V. Francis operating in the same premises. They have used same workers and exchanged orders from one firm to another. Funds were also transferred in similar manner. They were maintaining parallel set of invoices. Their turnover exceeded Rs. 30 lakhs every year from 93 -94 onwards. Santom Enterprises had transferred Rs. 3,00,000/ - to Santom Industrial Liners on 27 -11 -97. Sri M. Francis in his statement inter alia stated that they have supplied goods worth Rs. 30 lakhs every year from 93 -94 onwards as he was under impression that FRP/PP Storage tanks, FRP/PP lining pipes and FRP roofing sheets are fully exempted as they were not availing modvat facilities; that as soon as they crossed Rs. 30 lakhs excluding FRP/PP Tanks during 97 -98, they voluntarily registered with Central Excise Department.

(3.) REVENUES submission in the grounds of appeal is mainly on the fact that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has not properly discussed or distinguished the case of M/s. KWH Heliplastics. It is the submission that the FRP Tanks, manufactured by the assessee are for storage of liquid that and these tanks are used for special purposes like storing of chemicals. It is the submission that the tariff heading does not make any difference in this regard. It is the submission that it is not proper to classify the same in general and residual entry like 29 when there is a specific entry. It is the submission that the decision of the Apex Court in the case of KWH Heliplastics (supra) has very clearly settled the law in favour of the revenue.