2009 (4) TMI 169 - AT - Central Excise

Who is manufacturer - It appeared to the department that the appellants were manufacturers of the blended yarn and that the various spinners residing in the village areas notified by the KVIC were hired labourers of the appellants. It is on this basis that a show-cause notice was issued to the appellants in November, 2001 demanding duty of Rs. 35,82,375/-, applying the extended period of limitation, on yarn cleared without payment of duty during the period December, 1996 to September, 2001. held that - In the present case, there is no material on record to arrive at the conclusion that the appellants supervised the individual spinners. The appellant s contention that they did not supervise and could not supervise the production by individual spinners, is also borne by the fact that the spinners are located in different villages and it is, therefore, not possible for the appellants to exercise any control or supervision over the production of yarn by the spinners. demand set aisde.

Summary

Issues:
- Whether the appellants are considered manufacturers of blended yarn.
- Whether the individual spinners can be classified as hired laborers.
- Whether the appellants exercised control or supervision over the production by individual spinners.
- Whether the appellants are liable to pay duty on the yarn cleared.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Manufacturers of Blended Yarn
The appellants, certified by the Khadi and Village Industries Commission, were alleged to be manufacturers of blended yarn. The department issued a show-cause notice demanding duty on yarn cleared without payment. The Commissioner held the appellants as manufacturers due to continuous ownership until the production of Poly Vastra. However, the appellants argued that individual spinners were independent job workers, citing legal precedents where supervision was crucial in determining manufacturers. The Tribunal found no evidence of supervision by the appellants over individual spinners, concluding that the appellants were not manufacturers of the goods in question.

Issue 2: Classification of Individual Spinners
The department argued that individual spinners were hired laborers of the appellants based on various factors. However, the Tribunal noted that the appellants did not determine the wages of the spinners, and the spinners operated independently in different villages, making supervision impractical. The Tribunal held that the spinners were not hired laborers but independent workers, supporting the appellants' position.

Issue 3: Control and Supervision
The appellants contended that they did not exercise control or supervision over the artisans, as evidenced by the Poly Vastra Certification Rules regulating their activities. The Rules specified penalties for violations and restricted the appellants to operate only in allotted areas. The Tribunal found no indication of control or supervision by the appellants over the artisans, further supporting the appellants' stance.

Issue 4: Duty Payment Liability
The department's demand for duty on yarn cleared by the appellants was based on the assumption of their manufacturing status. However, as the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, stating they were not manufacturers, the duty payment liability was dismissed. The Tribunal also noted that the demands in the appeals were barred by limitation, without delving into the Section 11C Notification's impact on establishing the appellants' bona fides.

In conclusion, the Tribunal held that the appellants were not manufacturers of the blended yarn, the individual spinners were not hired laborers, and the appellants did not exercise control or supervision over the artisans. The duty demands were dismissed, and the appeals were allowed.