1997 (4) TMI 239 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the supplier of raw material is considered a manufacturer under Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
2. Whether the clearances by the respondents can be clubbed with the clearance of the raw material supplier.
3. Whether the respondents are eligible for the benefit of exemption Notification No. 175/86 for Small Scale Industries.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Manufacturer Status of Raw Material Supplier
The Collector (Appeals) concluded that the supplier of raw material, Brooke Bond India, is not a manufacturer under Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. This decision was based on a detailed examination of the facts and relevant case law. The Collector found that the relationship between Brooke Bond and the respondents was at arm's length and on a principal-to-principal basis. The contract between them specified conditions for quality control, but the Collector determined that these conditions were solely for quality control purposes and did not indicate a manufacturing relationship.

Issue 2: Clubbing of Clearances
The Revenue argued that the respondents, being labor contractors, were not manufacturers, and only Brooke Bond India should be considered as such. However, the Advocate for the respondents contended that the Collector correctly applied the law and cited relevant judgments supporting the independence of the respondents as manufacturers. The Tribunal noted that there was no evidence to suggest that the respondents were dummy units and emphasized the principal-to-principal relationship between the parties. The Tribunal referenced previous judgments, including those of the Supreme Court, to support the conclusion that clearances of goods manufactured on a principal-to-principal basis cannot be clubbed with the clearances of the raw material supplier.

Issue 3: Eligibility for Exemption
The Collector granted the respondents the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 175/86 for Small Scale Industries, as they were deemed independent manufacturers. The Tribunal upheld this decision, noting that there was no evidence of financial flowback or the existence of dummy units. The Tribunal found that the Revenue failed to establish grounds for applying certain judgments that required a different outcome, as the facts of this case supported the respondents' eligibility for the exemption.

In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeals and upheld the Collector's decision, as it was in line with established legal principles and previous judgments. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the Collector's findings and confirmed the impugned order.