9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2001 (11) TMI 138 - AT - Central Excise
Issues:
Determining liability for excise duty on goods manufactured by job workers. Analysis: The appeal involved the question of whether iron and steel goods manufactured by job workers for M/s. Nahar Spinning Mills Ltd. were liable to excise duty. The appellants argued that they were not the manufacturers as the job workers were independent contractors, not hired laborers. They contended that the job workers manufactured the goods, and the appellants only supplied material for quality assurance. The appellants referenced a previous decision stating that hired laborers work under the control of others for wages, and if they undertake manufacturing on their own account, they cannot be considered hired laborers. In response, the Department argued that the job workers were hired laborers as they worked on the factory site of the appellants under their supervision, using raw materials provided by the appellants. The Department relied on statements from the General Manager and the job workers to support their contention that the appellants were the manufacturers liable for excise duty. The Tribunal considered the provisions of the Central Excise Act, which state that duty is levied on goods produced or manufactured in India. The Tribunal noted that supplying raw materials alone does not make one a manufacturer. Citing a precedent involving the Kerala State Electricity Board, where the supply of materials and supervision did not establish the contractors as hired laborers, the Tribunal held that the appellants could not be considered manufacturers in this case. The Tribunal found insufficient evidence to conclude that the job workers were hired laborers, allowing the appeal solely on this ground. In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of M/s. Nahar Spinning Mills Ltd., holding that they were not the manufacturers of the goods manufactured by job workers, and hence not liable for excise duty. The decision was based on the lack of evidence to establish the job workers as hired laborers and the appellants as manufacturers, as required by the Central Excise Act.
|
