2001 (6) TMI 103 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Liability of duty on manufacturers of soap
- Valuation of goods
- Interpretation of contract for manufacturing

Liability of duty on manufacturers of soap:
The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order stating that the appellants were liable to pay duty as they were the manufacturers of Soap, not the processors. The Commissioner highlighted that the ownership of goods, from raw materials to final products, vested with the appellants. The two enterprises only raised a consolidated bill for formulation charges, and the goods were cleared under the brand name of the appellants. The Commissioner emphasized that the primary manufacturers were the appellants, and the exemption did not apply due to the branded goods. The Commissioner rejected the appellant's argument that they were only trading goods, holding them liable to pay duty.

Valuation of goods:
The Tribunal noted the Constitution Bench decision in the Ujagar Prints case, establishing that processors causing the manufacture of goods are liable to pay excise duty. The Tribunal disagreed with the Commissioner's findings and emphasized that there can only be one manufacturer of excisable goods, which in this case was the processor. The Tribunal found that the evidence of the appellants applying for registration did not establish them as the primary manufacturer. The Tribunal referred to the Pawan Biscuits case, stating that valuation of goods manufactured by the processor must be done as per the law laid down by the Apex Court.

Interpretation of contract for manufacturing:
The Tribunal disregarded the examination of contract clauses between the raw material supplier and the processor, citing the Apex Court decision in the Pawan Biscuits case. The Tribunal set aside the order demanding duty from raw material suppliers, following the directions of the Apex Court. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the previous order and allowed the appeals.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order, emphasizing that the appellants were not liable to pay duty as manufacturers but as processors. The Tribunal's decision was based on established legal principles regarding the liability for excise duty and the interpretation of contracts for manufacturing processes.