BUILDO MAT Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M /s. Buildo Mat (hereinafter referred to as the appellants) is a proprietary concern dealing in doors/windows/ profiles falling under Chapter 39 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Based on intelligence, the regional unit of the Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence searched the premises of the appellants and booked a case for manufacture and removal of plastic doors/PVC doors/plastic doors with frames bearing SINTEX brand name without payment of duty and observing central excise formalities. The original authority confirmed the demand of Rs. 7,32,079/ - for the period from 23 -7 -1996 to 31 -12 -2000 under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. A penalty of Rs. 7,04,945/ - being the amount equivalent to duty demanded for the period from 28 -9 -1996 to 31 -12 -2000 was imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. A penalty of Rs. 25,000/ - was also imposed under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for the period prior to incorporation of Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Interest was also demanded under Section 11AB of the Act. The appellants appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals) who upheld the Order -in -Original of the original authority. The appellants have come before this Tribunal aggrieved by the Order -in -Appeal dated 1 -10 -2003. The following are the short points in this appeal :

(2.) SHRI M.S. Nagaraja, Advocate appeared for the appellants and Shri L. Narasimha Murthy SDR appeared for the revenue.

(3.) WE have heard the rival contentions. The appellants purchased plastic sections and profiles from M/S. Sintex Industries, Kalol and from local suppliers, fabricate doors using above materials at their premises as per customers specifications. These doors are cleared on sale and installed in the premises of the customers. The appellant submitted that for fabricating doors they adopt the process of cutting, drilling holes etc. and these processes do not amount to manufacture. They also contended that as these doors are fixed in the premises of the customers and become immovable property, they are not excisable. The above contentions of the appellants are not acceptable. The Commissioner (Appeals) in his Order -in -Appeal has given ample justification to hold that the doors fabricated by the appellants are excisable. It is on record as seen from the invoices produced by the investigation that the appellant is selling plastic doors. There is no strong case for the appellants to hold that the plastic doors are not excisable. The doors become immovable property only after they are fixed. When they are cleared from the premises of the appellants, they are not at all considered as immovable property. We uphold the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the doors are excisable.