1995 (12) TMI 120 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether M/s. VST Industries Ltd. is required to take out a license under Notification No. 305/77.
2. Whether the benefit of Notification No. 77/83 and earlier Notification No. 105/80 was available to M/s. Samanto Laminates Pvt. Ltd.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1:
The case involved a dispute regarding the classification and liability to pay Central Excise Duty on slides manufactured by M/s. Samanto Laminates Pvt. Ltd. (SLPL) on behalf of M/s. VST Industries Ltd. The Revenue alleged that the slides should be classified under Tariff Item 17(3) as they were utilized for packing cigarettes manufactured by VST. A Show Cause Notice was issued demanding duty from VST for the slides and questioning the licensing requirements under Notification No. 305/77.

The counsel for the appellants argued that SLPL was an independent manufacturer, holding a license under the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. They contended that SLPL operated autonomously, had separate facilities, staff, and control over their operations. The raw materials were supplied by VST, but this alone did not establish SLPL as a non-manufacturer. Citing relevant case law, the appellants emphasized the independent nature of SLPL's manufacturing process.

The lower authorities had held that SLPL manufactured the slides on behalf of VST, directing VST to either obtain a license under TI-68 or authorize SLPL to follow Central Excise formalities. However, the appellate tribunal disagreed, ruling that SLPL was an independent manufacturer and VST was not required to take out a license in SLPL's premises under Notification No. 305/77.

Issue 2:
Regarding the benefit of Notification No. 77/83 and earlier Notification No. 105/80 for SLPL, the tribunal found in favor of SLPL. The tribunal noted that SLPL, as a small-scale industrial unit, was entitled to the benefits under these notifications. The tribunal set aside the lower authorities' orders and allowed both appeals filed by VST and SLPL.

In conclusion, the tribunal held that VST was not obligated to obtain a license in SLPL's premises and that SLPL was eligible for the benefits under the relevant notifications. The judgment emphasized the independent manufacturing status of SLPL and the principal-to-principal relationship between the two appellants, ultimately ruling in their favor and overturning the lower authorities' decisions.