9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (10) TMI 768X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in the factory. Later, by letter dated 3-4-1996, the Department was informed by the appellants that the TG Sets had been purchased from D.L.F. Industries Ltd. Faridabad, whereupon M/s D.L.F. Industries were asked by the Department by letter dated 15-5-1996 to produce the agreements/contracts relating to the TG Sets entered into between them and the appellants, and also certain other documents. In response to this requisition, M/s D.L.F. Industries submitted the documents. On examination of the said documents, the Department found that three separate agreements had been made between D.L.F. Industries and the appellants on 13-5-1991. The first agreement was for conceptualisation, System Engineering & Corrective Engineering, Preparation of l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sets and impose penalty on the appellants. These proposals were contested by the party in their reply to the show-cause notice. The Commissioner, who adjudicated the dispute, confirmed the above demand of duty and imposed on the appellants a penalty of equal amount under Section 11AC of the Act. He also ordered confiscation of the TG Sets with option for redemption thereof on payment of fine of Rs. 1.5 crores. The present appeal by the assessees is against the order of the Commissioner. 2. We have heard both sides. Ld. Advocate Shri Rajesh Kumar reiterated the grounds of the appeal. He emphatically submitted that the TG Sets were not manufactured by the appellants but the same were manufactured by D.L.F. Industries as job workers und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t was M/s D.L.F. Industries who manufactured the TG Sets as job workers for the appellants, there was no justification for demanding Central Excise duty on the goods from the appellants on the ground that the manufacturing activity took place in their premises. 4. In the case of Best Cotton Mills (supra), the issue was quite similar to the issue involved in the instant case. In that case, a generating set had been assembled in the premises of the appellants by M/s. Electro Control Device as job workers. It was found by the Tribunal that the Revenue could not establish that M/s. Electro Control Device were only hired labourers of the appellants. It was, therefore, held that the real manufacturer of the generating set was M/s. Electro C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
