1998 (10) TMI 221 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether M/s. S.M. Auto Engg. Pvt. Ltd. can be considered the manufacturer of goods assembled at M/s. Bajaj Tempo.
2. Validity of duty demand on goods assembled at M/s. Bajaj Tempo.
3. Duty demand on the manufacture of table and other furniture items.

Analysis:

1. The appeal by M/s. S.M. Auto Engg. Pvt. Ltd. was against Order-in-Original No. 32/CEX/90 passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Pune. The appellants, engaged in manufacturing brake assembly, entered into a labour contract with M/s. Bajaj Tempo due to a strike in their factory. The dispute arose as duty was demanded on the basis that the appellants were the manufacturers of goods assembled at M/s. Bajaj Tempo. The appellant argued that they were merely supplying labor for assembly, and all necessary materials, machinery, and facilities were provided by M/s. Bajaj Tempo, thus they should not be considered manufacturers.

2. The Order-in-Original held M/s. S.M. Auto Engg. Pvt. Ltd. as the manufacturer, stating they used their own material and only received some main components from M/s. Bajaj Tempo. It was also noted that the manufacturing activities were supervised and controlled by M/s. Bajaj Tempo. The Departmental Representative cited a Tribunal decision to support the view that in job work scenarios, the job worker is deemed the manufacturer. However, the appellant clarified that they had sold the raw materials to M/s. Bajaj Tempo due to the strike, indicating they did not own the materials. The Tribunal found that the contract was solely for labor supply, not for job work or manufacturing, and hence overturned the duty demand related to goods assembled at M/s. Bajaj Tempo.

3. The Tribunal allowed the appeal concerning the duty demand on goods assembled at M/s. Bajaj Tempo, ruling that the appellant was not the manufacturer in that scenario. However, the duty demand related to the manufacture of table and other furniture items in their factory was upheld, indicating that duty was payable on those goods. The decision was based on the specific circumstances of the labor contract and the ownership of materials and facilities involved in the manufacturing process.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key arguments, findings, and conclusions regarding the issues raised in the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi.