9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2005 (6) TMI 107 - AT - Central Excise
Issues:
1. Whether the process of converting lead ingots into anodes amounts to manufacture and if the product is marketable. 2. Whether a specific company was the manufacturer of the product. 3. Whether the extended period of limitation under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act was applicable for demanding duty. Analysis: Issue 1: The appellants were engaged in manufacturing zinc using an electrolytic process involving lead anodes. The department alleged that the job workers were hired labor and the appellants were the real manufacturers of the lead anodes. The Tribunal held that no manufacture was involved in the process. The Supreme Court considered three issues, answering affirmatively to the process amounting to manufacture and marketability of the product. The matter was remanded to the Tribunal for the third issue. Issue 2: The appellants argued that the job workers operated on a principal-to-principal basis, not as hired labor, citing relevant case law. The department contended that the appellants supplied raw materials and controlled the process, thus manufacturing the goods. The Tribunal examined the work order and rejected the department's argument, emphasizing the job workers' role as manufacturers supported by legal precedents. Issue 3: The department raised estoppel against the appellants, claiming they had paid duty on similar items in another unit. The Tribunal rejected this new ground, stating it was beyond the show cause notice's scope. The Tribunal emphasized the job workers' independent role in manufacturing the goods, distinguishing them from hired laborers, as per legal interpretations and factual evidence presented. In conclusion, the Tribunal held that the appellants were not the manufacturers of the goods in question and were not liable to pay duty. The demand for duty was set aside, and the penalty imposed was vacated, allowing the appeal in favor of the appellants. *(Operative part of this order pronounced in open Court on 7-6-2005)*
|
