ORDER
P.C. Jain, Vice President
1. Matter called. None for the appellant. They have given a request for deciding the appeal on merit.
2. Question before us in this appeal is classification of the following goods:-
1. Racks in Store Bldg.
2. M.S. Pallets at Finishing House
3. Conveyor Supports
4. F.H. Godown Gate No. 2
5. Stores Godown Window
6. Stores Godown Gate
3. The adjudicating authority has classified racks under Tariff Heading 94.03 and the other articles as mentioned above under Tariff Heading 73.08. The adjudicating authority has not accepted the plea of the appellants that the articles fabricated by them out of duty paid iron and steel products by cutting them to size, drilling holes, by joining them by rivetting or welding are not goods and that they are embedded in earth or in walls. Collector’s finding is that these are goods which can be removed and refixed and these cannot be covered under the category of ‘immovable’ articles, though attached to the ground or walls.
4. After having heard the ld. JDR and going through the Memo of Appeal, we observe that “rack” is a furniture and cannot be treated as immovable goods as argued by the appellants, similarly for M.S. Pallets at Finishing House. Likewise, gate No. 2, Store godown window, Store godown gate, though may be attached to the earth or the walls, they cannot be treated as immoval’e because they can be removed and refixed at some other place as rightly held by the adjudicating authority. Therefore, the classification of these goods has been correctly made by the adjudicating authority except, in our view, in the case of conveyor supports. Conveyor supports as the name itself suggests is an immovable item embedded in earth meant for supporting the conveyor system.
5. In view of the above, the impugned order is partly set aside in so far as classification of conveyor supports is concerned, but it is confirmed in respect of other articles.
6. Next plea of the appellants is that the demand of duty on the aforesaid goods is barred by time inasmuch as the Deptt. was aware of the activity of ‘manufacture’ of the same as a show-cause notice for the same goods had been issued earlier by the Revenue.
7. On this plea, the ld. JDR Shri Nunthuk draws attention to the Tribunal’s Final Order No. E/1381/97-B1, dated 4-6-1997,1998 (97) E.L.T. 298 (Tribunal) enclosed by the appellants with their written submissions. The said judgement of the Tribunal deals with steel structural and cement blocks. He submits that the details of the steel structural has not been given in the said Order and therefore it cannot be correctly stated, as pleaded by the appellants, that the same items are involved here as were involved earlier. He, therefore, submits that the benefit given to the appellant in respect of earlier Order should not be given to the present items, since the appellants had not disclosed the activity of manufacture of the aforesaid items. There is a clear case of suppression of facts and hence the demand of duty is sustainable even though the notice has been issued beyond the period of 6 months.
8. We find sufficient force in the plea of the ld. JDR, Shri S. Nunthuk. The Order dated 4-6-1997 enclosed by the appellant with their written submissions does not disclose that the same items which are involved in this case were also involved in the appellants’ earlier case. We, therefore, agree with the ld. JDR that there has been suppression of facts by not disclosing the activity of manufacture of items involved in the present case which were not involved in the earlier case. Accordingly, the demand of duty in respect of the items, except the conveyor support, is confirmed.