1994 (2) TMI 265 - AT - Central Excise

Appeal to Appellate Tribunal - Additional ground - Manufacturer - Job worker - Paper bags exempted under Notification No. 280/88-C.E.

Summary

Issues:
1. Stay application for dispensation of pre-deposit of duty and penalty.
2. Interpretation of exemption notifications for duty payment.
3. Determination of manufacturer status in relation to job workers.
4. Consideration of additional grounds and notifications for duty exemption.
5. Remand of the matter for fresh consideration based on observations.

Analysis:
1. The appellants sought waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty pending appeal against the order of the Collector of Central Excise. The Tribunal granted the stay application to dispose of the appeal on a short point, allowing the appellants to proceed without pre-deposit.

2. The appeal involved a dispute regarding duty demand on goods covered by various exemption notifications. The appellants argued that the goods were exempt from duty under specific notifications, emphasizing that job workers should be considered independent manufacturers unless proven otherwise. The Tribunal noted discrepancies in the lower authority's findings and remanded the matter for detailed consideration.

3. The issue of determining the manufacturer status in relation to job workers was crucial. The lower authority had considered the appellants as manufacturers based on control exercised over job workers. However, the Tribunal observed contradictions in the lower authority's reasoning and directed a fresh evaluation of the manufacturer status based on contractual relationships and control exercised.

4. The appellants raised additional grounds related to the applicability of specific notifications for duty exemption. The Tribunal permitted the appellants to argue the applicability of these notifications, highlighting the relevance of Tariff Headings and specific notifications exempting goods from duty payment.

5. Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the lower authority for a fresh consideration in light of the observations made. The appellants were granted the opportunity to present all relevant pleas, including the contention that they were not the manufacturer under the law, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive review based on contradictory findings.

This detailed analysis covers the key issues addressed in the legal judgment, highlighting the arguments presented by both parties and the Tribunal's decision to remand the matter for further consideration.