C.C.E Rohtak Respondent Appearance: Ms. Sameer Agarwal, Advocate for the Appellants Mr. Pramod Kumar, Jt. CDR for the Respondent Hon'ble Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical) Hon'ble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) Date of Hearing.15.04.2015 FINAL ORDER NO. 5138051383 /2015Ex(Br) Per Rakesh Kumar (for the Bench): The facts leading to filing of these appeals are, in brief, as under: 1.1 The appellant are a Public Sector Undertakingengaged in providing telecommunication services. During the period from 01.04.2000 to 31.10.2005, they purchased switching equipments and other essential parts of the system such as power plant required for producing 48V DC power, inverter etc., and assembled and installed the same at various places to set up telephone exchange. The Department was of the view that this activity of the appellant would amount to manufacture and accordingly, the appellant would be required to pay duty on the telephone exchanges which have come into existence. According to the Department by this activity of the appellant telephone exchanges classifiable under heading 8517 have come existence. It is on this basis that four show cause notices, the details of which are given below, were issued to the appellant for demand of the duty along with interest thereon under section 11AB and also for imposition of penalty on them under section 11AC. a) SCN dated 01.07.2005 for demand of Central Excise Duty amounting to Rs. 2,43,87,255/ along with interest on it under section 11AB for the period from 01.04.2000 to 31.12.2004. b) SCN dated 02.08.2005 for demand of duty amounting to Rs. 89,86,819/ for the period from 01.04.2000 to 31.12.2004 along with interest on it under section 11AB. c) SCN dated 05.10.2006 for demand of duty amounting to Rs. 17,64,968/ from the period from 01.04.2004 to 31.10.2005 along with interest on in under section 11Ab. d) SCN dated 09.06.2006 for demand of duty amounting to Rs. 1,26,26,440/ for the period from 25.07.2001 to 31.03.2005 along with interest on it under section 11AB. 1.2 The above SCNs were issued by invoking extended period under proviso to Section 11A(1) of Central Excise Act, 1944, alleging that the appellant have suppressed the relevant facts from the Department. 1.3 The above 4 SCNs were adjudicated by Commissioner of Central Excise Rohtak by four separate orders and by these orders, the above mentioned duty demands were confirmed against the appellant along with interest on it under section 11AB and beside this penalty of equal amount were imposed under section 11AC. Against the above order of the Commissioner, these appeals have been filed. 2. Heard both the sides. 3. Sh. Sameer Agarwal, Advocate, the Ld. Counsel for the appellant pleaded that the appellant purchased switching equipments, power supply, inverter etc., from various suppliers, that the heart of the telephone exchange is switching system, that by installing the switching system along with power plant and inverter does not bring into existence any new commodity with distinct name, character or uses, that the goods purchased by the appellant were electrical apparatus for line telephony/ line telegraphy and the same remained as such after installation,