9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (3) TMI 392X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en produced, in view of the settled legal position on this issue, it is the job workers who have to be treated as the manufacturer and not the appellant and the appellants were not liable to pay the duty. The impugned order, therefore, is not sustainable. The same is set aside. The appeal is allowed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder held that in respect of the storage tank and steel structures got manufactured by the appellant through job workers, it is the appellant who have to be treated as manufacturer and would be liable to pay the Central excise duty. It is against this order of the Commissioner that the present appeal has been filed. 2. Heard both sides. 3. Ms. Reena Khair, Advocate, the ld. Counsel for the appellant, pleaded that the goods had been manufactured by the job workers out of the raw-material supplied by the appellant, that it is not the allegation of the Department that the transactions between the appellant and the job workers are not on principle to principle basis, that in view of this position, it is the job workers who have to be treated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 610 wherein the Tribunal held that in respect of cement product such as slabs, half round channels, Trapezoidal sections and PCC channels for use in the canal of irrigation project, which were manufactured by the contractor carrying out the work on payment of labour charges on behalf of Irrigation Department it is the Irrigation Department which has to be cannot be treated as the manufacturer. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. The storage tanks and other steel structures are fabricated by the contractors on job work basis out the raw-material and designs and specifications supplied by the appellant. It is not the allegation of the Department that the transactions between the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r that on careful examination of the tender documents it could not be said that the manufacturing activity in the cement yards for production of goods had been done on principal to principal basis and that the terms of the agreement and the ratio of the Tribunal's judgment in the case of Kerala State Electricity Board (supra) is not directly applicable to the facts of this case. Since in this case it is neither the Department's allegation that the transactions between the appellant and the job workers were not on principal to principal basis nor any evidence in this regard has been produced, in view of the settled legal position on this issue, it is the job workers who have to be treated as the manufacturer and not the appellant and the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
