2003 (5) TMI 123 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Whether excisable goods in question have been manufactured by M/s. Surindra Engineering Co. Ltd.

Analysis:
1. The appeals revolve around the issue of whether M/s. Surindra Engineering Co. Ltd. manufactured the excisable goods in question. The appellant argued that they were the main contractors for the project with Punjab State Electricity Board (PSEB) and subcontracted fabrication work to M/s. H.B. Construction Co. The appellant contended that M/s. H.B. Construction Co. was an independent contractor specialized in installation work and should not be considered a manufacturer. The appellant cited legal precedents to support their argument that the supplier of raw materials or subcontractor does not automatically become a manufacturer.

2. The Revenue, on the other hand, argued that the relationship between the appellant and M/s. H.B. Construction Co. was not on a principal-to-principal basis but more akin to hired labor. They pointed out that the appellant supplied machinery and materials to M/s. H.B. Construction Co. for the fabrication work, and the work was supervised by the appellant. The Revenue highlighted contractual conditions and statements to support their contention that the appellant was the main manufacturer of the goods in question.

3. The Tribunal analyzed the submissions from both sides and reiterated the legal principle that the actual manufacturer is liable to pay Central Excise duty. The Tribunal emphasized that merely supplying raw materials or supervising the fabrication process does not automatically make one a manufacturer. Citing relevant legal cases, including a Supreme Court decision, the Tribunal clarified that job workers or subcontractors can be considered manufacturers only if they have an independent unit and exercise control over the manufacturing process. In this case, the Tribunal found that the appellant could not be considered the manufacturer of the goods in question and, therefore, were not liable to pay the duty. The impugned order was set aside, and both appeals were allowed.