1999 (3) TMI 135 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Liability of duty on ducts and flanges manufactured on a job contract basis.
2. Authority to issue Show Cause Notice for demand of duty.
3. Determination of manufacturer status and duty liability.
4. Classification of manufactured goods as new commodities.

Analysis:
1. The primary issue in this case is the liability of duty on ducts and flanges manufactured on a job contract basis at the site of a third party. The lower authority found that the appellants, as independent contractors, are considered manufacturers of these goods and therefore liable to pay duty. The manufactured items were determined to be new commodities and not immovable goods, leading to duty liability.

2. The appellants contested the authority of an Additional Collector to issue a Show Cause Notice for demand of duty under Section 11A. The lower authority rejected this plea, stating that the definition of 'Collector' in the C.E. Rules includes Additional Collector. Consequently, the expression 'Collector' in Section 11A of the Act was deemed to include the Additional Collector, upholding the validity of the Notice.

3. Another crucial aspect was the determination of the manufacturer status of the appellants. The appellants argued that they were not manufacturers but merely performed a job based on materials supplied by India Cements Ltd. However, they were classified as independent contractors and manufacturers by the lower authority. The Tribunal concurred with this classification, holding the appellants liable for duty as independent contractors.

4. Lastly, the classification of the manufactured goods as new commodities was examined. The Tribunal noted that the ducts and flanges were fabricated from duty paid sheets and angles, resulting in the creation of new products distinct from the raw materials. The fabricated items were found to be movable goods, not permanently fixed structures, thus attracting duty liability as determined by the lower authority.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found no merit in the appeal and upheld the lower authority's decision, confirming the duty liability of the appellants for manufacturing ducts and flanges on a job contract basis.