2005 (9) TMI 579 - AT - Central Excise

Manufacturer - Goods manufactured on job work basis - Confiscation - Returned goods for repairing

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether fixing a label/logo on manufactured goods makes the party a manufacturer.
2. Validity of the seizure and confiscation of goods based on duty liability.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The main issue in the present case was whether fixing a label/logo on the cars manufactured by M/s. Ferro Metal Industries Pvt. Ltd. by the respondents would make the respondents the manufacturer of the cars. The revenue contended that the act of fixing the logo would classify the respondents as the manufacturer. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that such fixing of labels does not make the respondents the manufacturer of the cars. Upon hearing both sides, the Tribunal found that the goods were indeed manufactured by M/s. Ferro Metal Industries Pvt. Ltd. on a job work basis, and the duty liability was discharged by them. The Tribunal emphasized that the mere act of fixing the logo by the respondents, who did not have the necessary machinery to manufacture the cars, does not make them the manufacturer. Therefore, the Tribunal rejected the revenue's appeal, concluding that the respondents were not the manufacturers of the cars.

Issue 2:
Additionally, the respondents filed a cross-objection against the part of the Commissioner (Appeals) order that remanded the matter to the original adjudicating authority for verifying documents related to the seized cars. The Tribunal noted that since it had already determined that the duty was not required to be paid by the respondents as they were not the manufacturers, the seizure and confiscation of the cars from the respondents' premises were unjustified. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the portion of the Commissioner (Appeals) order that called for further verification of documents. Both the appeals were disposed of accordingly, with the Tribunal ruling in favor of the respondents on both issues.

Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the decision that fixing a label/logo on manufactured goods does not make the party a manufacturer and further ruled that the seizure and confiscation of goods based on duty liability from the respondents' premises were not justified.