9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2005 (12) TMI 424 - AT - Central Excise
Issues:
Excisability on parts of structures; Appellant's liability for duty on fabricated steel structures; Manufacturer of the goods in question; Time-barred demand; Interpretation of terms and conditions of the contract. Analysis: The judgment addresses the issue of excisability on parts of structures and the appellant's liability for duty on fabricated steel structures. The Larger Bench of the Tribunal had previously settled the issue in favor of the Revenue. The appellant contended that the parts were fabricated by a sub-contractor and not by them directly. They argued that based on previous decisions, if raw materials and machines were supplied by the contractor to the sub-contractor, the sub-contractor should be considered the manufacturer. The appellant claimed they were not the manufacturer, thus the duty demand was unsustainable. The appellant also raised the issue of the demand being time-barred, citing various tribunal decisions pre-amendment in the tariff. They argued that no suppression with intent to evade payment of duty could be alleged. The Revenue, however, asserted that the terms and conditions of the contract indicated the appellant's liability for the demand. The Tribunal examined the contract terms, noting that the sub-contractor was responsible for arranging consumables, tools, labor, and machinery. Drawing parallels to previous cases, the Tribunal found that the sub-contractor was the actual manufacturer, not a hired laborer as contended by the Revenue. The Tribunal highlighted the similarities between this case and precedents where the manufacturer was determined based on the party responsible for fabrication and quality control. In this instance, as per the contract terms, the sub-contractor bore the cost of rejected materials, supervised the fabrication work, and arranged for all necessary resources. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the finding that the sub-contractor was a hired laborer and ruled in favor of the appellant. The demand and penalties were deemed unsustainable, leading to the allowance of the appeals.
|
