2002 (12) TMI 3 - AT - Central Excise

Central Excise Manufacturer Fabrication and assembly work Appellant contended that fabrication and assembly work under the contract by M/s. Oilex Engineers (I) Pvt. Ltd., were the manufacturer of goods in question, hence demand of duty and penalty set aside

Summary

Issues:
Adjudication order confirming Central Excise duty and imposing penalty for fabrication and assembling work of identifiable items.

Analysis:
The appellant appealed against the adjudication order confirming Central Excise duty of Rs. 43,71,452/- and imposing a penalty of Rs. 4,50,000/- for carrying out fabrication and assembling work of eight identifiable items. The appellant contended that they are engaged in the manufacture of Soyabean oil through Solvent Extraction and entered into a contract with M/s. Oilex Engineers (India) Ltd. for supply, erection, and commissioning of the Solvent Plant. The appellant argued that the goods in question were assembled and commissioned by M/s. Oilex Engineers (India) Ltd., making them the manufacturer, as per previous Tribunal decisions cited.

The Revenue contended that the goods were marketable as evidenced by a sale from M/s. Ambika Solvex Limited to M/s. Sagar Solvex Nimbatheda. Regarding the issue of who is the manufacturer, the Revenue argued that the appellants arranged labor and utilities for the fabrication assembly, making them the manufacturer. However, the appellants maintained that M/s. Oilex Engineers (India) Pvt. Ltd. is the manufacturer of the goods based on the terms of the contract and previous Tribunal decisions.

The Tribunal examined the contract terms between the appellants and M/s. Oilex Engineers (India) Pvt. Ltd., which specified that the assembly and commissioning were to be done by the latter. The Tribunal noted that the Plant was fabricated and installed by M/s. Oilex Engineers (India) Pvt. Ltd., leading to the conclusion that M/s. Oilex Engineers (India) Ltd. is the manufacturer of the goods. Therefore, without delving into the issue of marketability, the demand for duty against the appellants was set aside, along with the penalty.

This judgment highlights the importance of contractual terms and actual fabrication work in determining the manufacturer liable for Central Excise duty, as well as the significance of previous Tribunal decisions in establishing legal precedent for such cases.