2005 (2) TMI 634 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Identification of the manufacturer
2. Eligibility for exemption under Notification 115/75-C.E.
3. Limitation period for the demands

The first issue pertains to determining the manufacturer of the goods in question. The Appellate Tribunal analyzed the setup where M/s. Duroflex Ltd. leased premises from individuals related to its factory manager and supplied raw materials and machinery for production. The Tribunal referred to a previous case involving Maruti Udyog Ltd. and concluded that the arrangement resembled hired laborership, establishing that M/s. Furnishing Centre and M/s. Binu Gardens were essentially laborers of Duroflex Ltd. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled in favor of Duroflex Ltd. as the manufacturer, overturning the lower authorities' decision.

Moving on to the second issue, the Tribunal examined whether Duroflex Ltd. was entitled to exemption under Notification 115/75-C.E. The Coir Board certified Duroflex Ltd.'s registration under the Coir Board, and the goods were not excluded under the notification. Citing a previous order involving Duroflex Ltd., the Tribunal emphasized that as long as the goods were manufactured in a factory falling under the Coir Industry, they were eligible for exemption. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed that Duroflex Ltd. qualified for the exemption under the notification.

Regarding the third issue, the Tribunal did not delve into the limitation period aspect due to its findings on the first two issues. Given Duroflex Ltd.'s belief in being the manufacturer and covered by the exemption under Notification 115/75-C.E., supported by the Coir Board's certificate, the Tribunal did not find it necessary to address the limitation argument. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeals in favor of Duroflex Ltd.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal's judgment clarified the manufacturer's identity, upheld Duroflex Ltd.'s eligibility for exemption under Notification 115/75-C.E., and did not address the limitation period due to the substantive findings. The decision favored Duroflex Ltd., emphasizing the contractual relationships and certifications supporting its position as the manufacturer and exemption recipient.