9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (1) TMI 517 - AT - Central ExciseManufacturer - Sub-contractor / job worker - who is liable to pay duty - appellant submits that the appellant had sub-contracted certain work to M/s. VEE under an agreement and as per the terms of the agreement, M/s. VEE is the fabricator of those piping and are liable to pay duty thereof being a job worker/manufacturer of such said goods, therefore, the appellant is not liable to pay duty. - Held that - As M/s. VEE has executed the work of fabrication of piping being a job worker and payment was being made on running bill basis and not on labour contract basis. Therefore, relying on the decision of AFL Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai-II 2013 (12) TMI 87 - CESTAT MUMBAI , we hold that the appellant is not a manufacturer of the goods, in question. M/s. VEE is the manufacturer of said goods only, therefore, duty cannot be demanded from the appellant. - Demand set aside - Decided in favor of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Liability of duty payment on fabricated goods. 2. Nature of the contractual relationship between the appellant and M/s. VEE. 3. Determination of the manufacturer of the goods. 4. Applicability of limitation period. 5. Classification of the fabricated item (pipe or shell). Detailed Analysis: 1. Liability of Duty Payment on Fabricated Goods: The appellant contested the demand for duty along with interest and penalty imposed by the lower authorities. The core issue was whether the appellant or M/s. VEE, the sub-contractor, was liable to pay the duty on the fabricated goods. The appellant argued that M/s. VEE, being the fabricator and job worker, was responsible for the duty payment. 2. Nature of the Contractual Relationship Between the Appellant and M/s. VEE: The appellant had sub-contracted the work to M/s. VEE under an agreement which stipulated that M/s. VEE would handle transportation, fabrication, and erection of piping works until final acceptance by NTPC and the appellant. The clauses of the agreement indicated that M/s. VEE was to perform the work from start to finish, including technical specifications, approved drawings, and requirements without any extra cost to the appellant. The agreement also detailed responsibilities for tools, machinery, and other resources, emphasizing that M/s. VEE was operating on a principal-to-principal basis rather than as a mere labor contractor. 3. Determination of the Manufacturer of the Goods: Upon examining the agreement and the nature of the work executed by M/s. VEE, it was determined that M/s. VEE acted as a manufacturer/job worker on a principal-to-principal basis. This was supported by a precedent set in the case of AFL Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai-II, where it was held that the job worker, not the principal contractor, was the manufacturer. The Tribunal found that M/s. VEE was responsible for the fabrication and erection of the piping works, and thus, the appellant could not be considered the manufacturer of the goods. 4. Applicability of Limitation Period: The appellant also contested the issue on the grounds of limitation. However, since the Tribunal decided the case in favor of the appellant on the merits, it did not delve into the issue of limitation. 5. Classification of the Fabricated Item (Pipe or Shell): The appellant argued that the goods fabricated by M/s. VEE were not pipes but shells, which would affect the duty liability. However, as the Tribunal resolved the primary issue of the manufacturer in favor of the appellant, it did not address the classification issue. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that M/s. VEE, not the appellant, was the manufacturer of the fabricated goods. Consequently, the duty could not be demanded from the appellant. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside, providing consequential relief to the appellant.
|
