1998 (11) TMI 249 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing supplemental appeals.
2. Disposal of appeals based on covered issues.
3. Refund claims for duties paid on RCC Poles and stay plates.
4. Determination of manufacturer status between appellants and contractors.
5. Rejection of refund claims based on manufacturer status.
6. Consideration of Tribunal's previous judgments on manufacturer status.

Analysis:
1. The judgment addressed the issue of condonation of delay in filing supplemental appeals, which arose from a main appeal filed in 1993. The Registry had issued a Defect Memo prompting the filing of supplemental appeals. The delay was condoned in accordance with Tribunal's practice, and all appeals were consolidated for consideration.

2. The second issue involved the disposal of appeals based on covered issues. The Learned Advocate argued that the matter could be disposed of since the issues were already addressed in previous appeals. The appeals from 1993 were listed for disposal after considering the arguments presented.

3. The appellants had filed refund claims for duties paid on RCC Poles and stay plates manufactured by independent contractors. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the claims, stating that duties were rightly paid by the appellants, and the contractors were not considered manufacturers. The Commissioner upheld this decision in the impugned order, denying the benefit of a specific notification.

4. The determination of the manufacturer status between the appellants and contractors was a crucial aspect of the judgment. The Commissioner viewed the appellants as manufacturers of RCC poles, with contractors merely executing work using supplied materials and machinery. This decision was influenced by previous orders and judgments on similar issues.

5. The rejection of refund claims was primarily based on the Commissioner's view that the appellants were manufacturers, not contractors. This decision led to the denial of refund on duties paid. However, the appellants argued that previous Tribunal judgments had established the contractors as the real manufacturers, warranting a refund of duties paid by the appellants.

6. The judgment extensively considered previous Tribunal decisions on the manufacturer status issue. The Tribunal had consistently ruled in favor of the contractors being the actual manufacturers, not the appellants. This led to the allowance of the appeals and the refund of duties paid by the appellants, as they were not considered the manufacturers in this case. The judgment emphasized following the precedent set in the appellants' own case to grant relief.