9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (10) TMI 323X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oil filter assembly which consists three parts, namely, filter heads, filter elements and oil shell; that they manufacture aluminium castings for filter heads and then send the same to various processors for machining; that the appellants are not the manufcturer of filter heads; that unmachined castings for filter heads are exempt from payment of duty under Notification No. 180/88-C.E., dated 13-5-1988. He, further, submitted that for manufacture of filter element, they procure raw materials like sheet metal and filter paper etc. from market; that these raw materials are sent to job workers for manufacturing filter elements; that third part, oil shell is purchased from the market; that as they were not manufacturing filter elements, no duty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... labour charges. He also reiterated the findings of the Collector in the impugned order, according to which machining of casting does not alter the essential character of casting and the filter heads remain to be filter heads. Regarding filter element also he reiterated Collector s findings to the effect that the appellants had not adduced any evidence that the goods were received from other manufactures; that permission under Rule 51A of the Central Excise Rules for bringing filter elements into factory was not obtained as they were manufacturing identical goods, i.e. Filter Disc. He finally submitted that the ratio of the decision in Mahendran Engg. s case, supra, is not applicable as the facts are different inasmuch as rotor/stators were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 85 and 87; that after the process of turning, drilling, boring, etc., castings get converted into machine parts. In view of this it cannot be said that machining does not alter the essential character of castings. We also observe that Department has not substantiated its submission that outside workers were hired labour and as such the Appellants should be considered as manufacturer. It is well settled law that raw material supplier is not a manufacture; person who manufactures the goods is the manufacturer, liable to pay duty. The Appellants have relied upon the decision in the case of C.C.E. v. Travancore Cochin Chemicals Ltd.- 1989 (44) E.L.T. 129 (Tribunal) and Lucas Indian Service Ltd. v. C.C.E., Madras - 1984 (16) E.L.T. 415. The Su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
