2016 (2) TMI 715 - AT - Central Excise

Excise duty demand - work through job worker - Held that - Central Excise duty is payable on manufacturing activity by the manufacturer. The manufacturing activity of the furniture at the site is by the job worker and not the appellant. The written contract between the appellant and subcontractor is not disputed by the revenue. The sub contractor is required to purchase material, procure his own labour to execute the contract given to him. If that be so, the manufacturing of furniture comes in to existence at the site, in the hands of the job worker. The judgement of the Tribunal in the case of Raymond Ltd. (2014 (12) TMI 947 - CESTAT NEW DELHI) is applicable in this case. Secondly, we find that appellant has given back-to-back contract to the subcontractor by a written agreement, a fact which was not on records in the appellant s own case in an earlier issue wherein the same allegations were levelled against the appellant. This factual difference in the case in hand was not considered by the adjudicating authority while deciding the issue. Thus we hold that the impugned order is incorrect and unsustainable - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues:
- Whether the appellant is liable to discharge Central Excise duty for manufacturing activity at the customer's site.
- Whether the subcontractor or the appellant is responsible for the duty liability.
- Whether the reasoning adopted by the adjudicating authority is correct in confirming the demands.
- Whether the appellant should be treated as a manufacturer for the activity at the customer's site.

Analysis:
1. The appeal challenged an order demanding Central Excise duty on the manufacturing of furniture articles at the customer's site by the appellant. The revenue claimed that this activity falls under manufacturing and attracts duty liability. The appellant contested this claim, arguing that the subcontractor, to whom the entire turnkey contract was given, is responsible for the manufacturing activity. The adjudicating authority dropped the proceedings on purchased items but confirmed demands on the manufacturing activity, imposing penalties and interest. The appellant relied on various legal precedents supporting their case.

2. The appellant contended that the duty liability should fall on the subcontractors, citing legal decisions favoring their argument. The departmental representative argued that the appellant, being responsible to the clients, should be considered the manufacturer. The Tribunal examined the records and found that the subcontractors procured raw materials and labor for the manufacturing activity at the site. The reasoning that the appellant is responsible for the manufacturing was deemed incorrect for multiple reasons.

3. The Tribunal held that Central Excise duty is payable on manufacturing activity by the manufacturer, which, in this case, is the job worker (subcontractor) and not the appellant. The written contract between the appellant and subcontractor was undisputed, indicating that the subcontractor was responsible for executing the contract. The Tribunal referenced a previous case to support this interpretation. Additionally, it noted that the appellant had a back-to-back contract with the subcontractor, a factual difference that was not considered by the adjudicating authority.

4. Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned order was incorrect and unsustainable. It set aside the order, allowing the appeal with any consequential relief. The judgment clarified that the manufacturing of furniture at the customer's site was the responsibility of the subcontractor, not the appellant, absolving the latter from duty liability in this scenario.