9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (11) TMI 292X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts were not the manufactures of the conveyer assembly system in this dispute. 2. Shri A. Vijayaraghavan learned Consultant for the appellants submitted that the appellants had subcontracted manufacture of the conveyor assembly system through two sub-contractors on record and the appellants had supplied certain electrical equipments pertaining thereto for their use. After fabrication, the system which consists of other modules or sub-system, was tested by the job worker at their premises. Since the system is one which could not be transported as such and hence, was brought in CKD condition to the appellants premises. The space available at the job worker s site was not adequate for the entire system to be assembled into one full system a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dules were supplied by the appellants through other sources to the job worker; (d) that the job worker only tested the a1ll modules with the help of these electrical equipments, but had at no time the entire conveyor system together was tested for its performance at the appellants premises. (e) Finally, he submitted that on receipt of the said modules in CKD condition in the appellants factory, by appellants own engineers and workmen, the system was assembled for the first time into a full conveyor assembly system and tested, demonstrated to the buyer and thereafter, disassembled and tainted with the use of power before despatching of the same to the buyer. He also submitted that since the assembly system, were as per the contracted d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egarding these two products and therefore, this authority had ultimately to procure the entire evidence from the job workers. This showed that there was no conscious effort on the part of the appellants to provide necessary information required and sought for by the department and it is settled law that where the information on excisable goods sought by the department is not provided by the assessee, then the assessee could not claim bonafide belief in the matter. 6. We have considered the rival submissions and records of the case. We find that there is substantial force in the submission of the learned DR that the activities undertaken by the appellants amounted to manufacture in terms of definition of manufacture under Section 2(f) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
