9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (5) TMI 599X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Shri Ashok Mehta, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : M/s. Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J)]. The above appeals involve common issues relating to eligibility of benefit of exemption in terms of Notification No. 217/86 on steel bins and trollies manufactured by the assessee herein etc. and are hence heard together and disposed of by this common order. E/1593/95-B : In this case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtment seeks restoration of the order of the Commissioner who had confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 1,26,111/- and imposed penalty of Rs. 1 lakh upon the assessee. 3. We have heard Shri Naveen Mullick, ld. Advocate and Shri Ashok Kumar, ld. JDR. 4. The contention of the assessee is that the goods in question on which duty has been demanded were manufactured by M/s. Sreeja Engineering Works who ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... early shows that they are service jobs carried out by hired labour and not by any independent manufacturer or fabricator. The fabrication and manufacture was admittedly undertaken within the factory premises of M/s. Bharat Seats Ltd. and there is nothing on record to establish that the machines, tools, welding equipment and other consumables were brought by the job workers to the factories of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e under this heading is liable to be paid by the appellants. The plea of bona fide belief also has no force in the light of our finding that M/s. Sreeja Engineering Works were hired labour for M/s. Bharat Seats Ltd. Hence, the extended period of limitation is available to the Department. We, therefore, uphold the duty demand and penalty and reject Appeal No. E/1593/95-B. 6. We now take up the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
