9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (11) TMI 145X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed the written submission of the respondents herein and heard the ld. SDR. 4. The ld. DR stated that the respondents are manufacturers of electric motors. 5. They had submitted a Classification List wherein they had claimed exemption under Notification No. 80/80-C.E., dated 19-6-1980 (as amended) in respect of such motors. 6. The assessees had further declared that they were manufacturing electric motors upto April, 1982 on behalf of M/s. Automatic Electric Ltd. (AEL), Thana and the A.C. vide his order dated 10-9-1980 had also decided that clearances of M/s. AEL, Thana, should be included in the value of clearances of M/s. Print Origin Co., for determining eligibility to Notification No. 71/78 dated 1-3-1978. 7. The assessees had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere not entitled to the said benefit. 12. The Collector (Appeals) has however, allowed the appeal of the assessees against the order of A.C. on the ground that the assessees were not a dummy Co. set up by M/s. AEL and in the instant case, it would be incorrect to add the clearances of the other factory to that of the respondents when no commonality of interest has been established. Hence, the appeal. 13. In this connection, he would like to draw attention to the fact that the transactions were required to be examined to determine as to who is a real manufacturer, and therefore, the following points are relevant - (i) The raw materials are entirely supplied by M/s. Automatic Electric Co. Ltd. (ii) M/s. Automatic Electric receive all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ally engaged in the production at different factories. 16. It was also their contention that the issue is fully covered by the Tribunal s decision in the case of M/s. Lucas India Services Ltd. [1984 (16) E.L.T. 415 (Tribunal) = 1984 ECR 1028 (CEGAT)] in which the Tribunal itself has distinguished the Supreme Court s judgment in Shree Agency s case. 17. It was also their contention that the issue could not be considered in the light of filing of the price-lists in para IV because such prices are required to be shown with reference to the valuation under provision of Section 4(4)(c) of CESA, 1944 and in the light of related person concept which is a concept adopted for valuation purposes but has no bearing on exemption Notification No. 8 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ribed limit in the previous financial year; on the basis of their own report M/s. AEL were the manufacturers of the excisable goods in question. 21. If M/s. AEL were the manufacturers as held by the departmental authorities and prayed in the memorandum of appeal before us, the action, if any due, was required to be directed against M/s. AEL and not against M/s. Print Origin; In other words SCN ought to have been issued to M/s. AEL and the question of clubbing exemption w.r.t. them. However, we find that they have not been even associated with the proceedings at any stage and the deptt. action has been directed against M/s. Print Origin who have stated that they were only job workers. 22. The legal position is that a job worker was requi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
