9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (12) TMI 171 - AT - Central ExciseAssessee manufacturer OR fabricator Job Work - Held that - From the work-orders, it is evident that the appellant has supplied all the raw materials and consumables for the fabrication of the racks and trolleys - They have also provided drawings and specifications and the work was carried out in appellant s own factory premises as per the instructions issued by the appellant - there was control over the activities of the fabricators by the appellant Relying upon Maruti Udyog Ltd. vs. Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi 1998 (12) TMI 332 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI - Thus, the appellant is the manufacturer and not the fabricators. Eligibility to the benefit of Notification No. 67/95 - The racks and trolleys manufactured by the appellant is held to be classifiable under Heading 9403 of the Central Excise Tariff which is one of the inputs specified in the said Notification - the appellants are manufacturing goods falling under Chapter 51, 55 and 58 of the Central Excise Tariff - In the Notification only Chapter 55 is excluded but goods falling under Chapters 51 and 58 are notified final products - if racks and trolleys were used in or in relation to the manufacture of goods falling under Chapter 51 and 58, the appellant would be eligible for the benefit of the aforesaid Notification Thus, the assessee is eligible for the benefit of exemption under Notification 67/95 - Decided in favour of Assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Determination of the manufacturer for excise duty purposes. 2. Eligibility for duty exemption under Notification No. 67/95-CE dated 16/03/1995. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Determination of the Manufacturer for Excise Duty Purposes: The primary issue was whether the appellant or the fabricators should be considered the manufacturer of the racks and trolleys for excise duty purposes. The appellant argued that the fabricators, being independent entities who undertook the manufacturing work, should be deemed the manufacturers. They cited precedents where job-workers were considered manufacturers when they undertook manufacturing activities using raw materials supplied by others. However, the Tribunal noted that the appellant supplied all raw materials and consumables, provided drawings and specifications, and the fabrication was carried out within the appellant's factory premises under their supervision. This established a master-servant relationship, making the appellant the manufacturer. The Tribunal distinguished the present case from cited precedents like M.M. Khambhatwala, where the manufacturing occurred outside the supplier's premises without their supervision. The Tribunal referenced Maruti Udyog Ltd. and Shree Agency cases, emphasizing that the presence of control and supervision by the raw material supplier within their premises makes them the manufacturer, not the fabricators. 2. Eligibility for Duty Exemption under Notification No. 67/95-CE: The appellant claimed eligibility for duty exemption under Notification No. 67/95-CE, which exempts inputs used within the factory for manufacturing final products. The Tribunal analyzed the notification, which exempts certain inputs if used in the production of specified final products. The racks and trolleys, classified under Heading 9403, were considered inputs under the notification. The appellant manufactured goods under Chapters 51, 55, and 58, with Chapters 51 and 58 being notified as final products under the notification. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue did not provide evidence that the racks and trolleys were used exclusively for products under Chapter 55, which is excluded from the notification. Therefore, if the racks and trolleys were used in manufacturing goods under Chapters 51 and 58, the appellant would be eligible for the exemption. The Tribunal concluded that the denial of the exemption by the lower appellate authority was unsustainable. Conclusion: The Tribunal held that the appellant is the manufacturer of the racks and trolleys, not the fabricators, and is eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 67/95-CE. The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was granted the duty exemption. Pronounced in Court on 27.9.2013
|
