CCE Vs. MAYA AND HARMONY INN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal and cross -objection are filed by the Revenue and the respondent respectively against the Order -in -Original No. 47/2004 dt. 16/12/2004 which was passed on remand of the matter from the Tribunal.

(2.) 1. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are:

(3.) LD . Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents would submit that the Tribunal had only remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority to consider the aspect of furniture and parts thereof cleared by the respondents (excluding the in situ furniture). It is his submission that the Committee of Chief Commissioners has also passed a review order under the provisions of Section 35E(1) and the issue is challenged only to the duty liability on the furniture items and deciding who is the manufacturer. It is his submission that the adjudicating authority has held the respondents as manufacturer of furniture but dropped the proceedings on the question of limitation. He would also draw our attention to the finding portion of the adjudicating authority on the limitation. It is his submission that the respondent was engaged in manufacturing of the items right from 1993 -94 onwards and only in the year 1997 -98 the duty liability arose as in that year only the respondent crossed exemption limit of SSI. He would rely upon the decisions of this Bench in the case of Petron Engg. & Construction Ltd. v. CCE&C, Visak : 2009 (243) ELT 272 (Tri. Bang.) for the proposition that the respondents were entertaining bonafide belief that the activities carried out by them does not amount to manufacture. He would also rely upon the decision of this Tribunal in their own case while remanding the matter back to the . adjudicating authority had held that most of the manufactured items are in situ items, Artistic furniture and set properties. Hence, responded had entertained a bonafide belief regarding the excisibility of the furniture which was supplied to hotels/agencies. He would submit that 81% of liability of the demand raised by the Revenue was dropped on the ground that the products are not excisable. This would indicate that the respondent had entertained a correct view about non -excisability of the goods.