Order Date – 01 March 2023

Parties: M/s. Classic Signages Private Limited and Shri Deepak Maheshwari, Director of Appellant M/s. Classic Signages Private Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax Commissionerate

Facts –

• The Appellant, M/s. Classic Signages Private Limited, are engaged in the work of fabrication and installation of Retail Visual Identity (“RVI”)
• It was observed that the work of RVI is a manufacturing activity and that the appellants did not disclose the fact that they are carrying manufacturing activity and had knowingly and willfully suppressed the actual manufacturing and clearance of the excisable goods without payment of duty and, therefore, the extended period of limitation as provided in proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 11 A of Central Excise Act, 1944 was invokable.

Issue –

• Whether the work of fabrication and installation of Retail Visual Identity (“RVI”) is liable to central excise duty?

Order –

• The Tribunal observed that the appellant has maintained proper books of accounts and had taken registration under the Service Tax Provisions for discharge of their tax liability under the head “Works Contract Service”. Thus, the extended period of limitation is not invokable.
• Further, on final fabrication and installation, the RVI forms part of the immovable property at the retail outlet and does not result in manufacture of goods. Further, various elements of RVI are neither movable nor marketable. It has been clarified by the Board in Circular No.58/1/2002-EX. 
• Hence it was held that central excise duty is not attracted, as the partially fabricated frames etc. removed from the works of the appellant are not in a marketable stage.
• Both the appeals are allowed.