9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (7) TMI 368X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by converting low density polyethylene (LDPE) granules into powder in its factory, or at the premises of so called job workers who were actually dummies of the applicant and cleared it without payment of duty during the period from 1-4-1994 to 3-2-1997. The notice issued was dated 23-6-1997. The representative of the applicant does not dispute the application of Note 6(b) of Chapter 39 of the tariff that conversion of LDPE into powder amounts to manufacture. He contends however, that pulverisation of the granules which were undertaken by the Job workers was necessary because of labour problems in the applicant's factory and that the job workers were independent, duty payable was by them, and not the applicant. It is not denied that the mach ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nufactures plastic powder. On the contrary, the applicant's letter dated 1-4-1993 seeking permission for sending the plastic to job workers for pulverisation would result in the department gathering the impression that it did not itself carry out such pulverisation. There is no evidence to show that the process of manufacture of the powder in the applicant's factory was communicated to the department. He contends that Section 11AC would apply for the period after 20th September, 1996. 5. It is difficult at this stage to conclude that the applicant had informed the department of the fact that it undertook the powderisation of plastics. Documents in the applicant's letterhead containing details of manufacturing process in which the emer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by any authority and is prima facie difficult to accept. 6. It is also not possible at this stage to agree that the job worker were entirely free and independent. In the face of electricity charges being reimbursed to them for pulverisation than the applicant itself would have been incurred in its factory, and the machinery being supplied to them and being maintained by the applicant, it cannot be said, prima facie, that the job worker was an independent manufacturer. 7. As far as the claim with regard penalty under Section 11AC, the applicant has a good prima facie, case for the period prior to September, 1996, since the clearance during these period would not prima facie attract penalty under that section. Taking all these as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
