9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (10) TMI 153X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d unauthorisedly without payment of central excise duty. Penalty of Rs. 25,000/- has also been imposed on them. 2. We have heard both sides and have carefully considered their submissions and the record. The appellants pressed before us only the following two arguments:- (1) Since the appellants supplied only the raw materials and all manufacturing operations were performed by M/s. IEC, M/s. I.E.C were the manufacturers and not the appellants; and (2) the demand show cause notice issued on 24-2-1979 for the period 6-3-1975 to 17-1-1978 was time barred. As no allegation of fraud or suppression had been made in the show cause notice and hence the normal time limit of six months applied. 3. We find from the order-in-appeal that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... word "manufacturer" shall be construed accordingly and shall include not only a person who employs hired labour in the production or manufacture of excisable goods, but also any person who engages in their production or manufacture on his own account." According to the aforesaid definition, the lower authorities have held the appellants as manufacturers of the instruments which they got fabricated from M/s. I.E.C. We agree with the lower authorities. The case of the appellants is distinguishable from the usual brand name cases, such as those reported at: (1) 1985 (22) E.L.T. 302(S.C.) - Cibatui Ltd. (2) 1985 (22) E.L.T. 324 (S.C.) - Food Specialties Ltd. , In the aforesaid Supreme Court cases, the brand name owners did not supply the ra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cause notice from which such allegation can be inferred. We observe from the show cause notice in this case that there was no disclosure made by the appellants to the authorities that they were getting a part of their instruments manufactured through M/s. I.E.C. The evidence of four letters pleaded by them before the Collector and the Board has been rightly rejected by these authorities because neither the Assistant Collector nor the Superintendent to whom these letters were said to have been addressed received any one of them. These letters has not been sent by registered post. There was no accountal in central excise records of the instruments manufactured by the appellants through M/s. I.E.C. nor any central excise duty was paid on thei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
