9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (8) TMI 735X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , tables, platform, stools etc. Such goods were manufactured by the job workers out of the raw materials such as bars, angles, strips, channels, electrodes etc. supplied by the appellants as per their designs/specifications. The appellants also supplied to the job worker, the consumables, electricity, welding goods, drawings and sketches free of cost. Accordingly, the proceedings were initiated and a show cause notice dated 17/20-12-1989 was issued to them by the Addl. Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad calling upon them to show cause why a duty of Rs. 1,37,123.31 in respect of the aforestated goods manufactured by them during the period from 1-3-1986 to 31-1-1987 totally valued at Rs. 8,92,701.63 should not be recovered from them u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... premises in relation to the manufacture of final products viz., Motor vehicle parts and accessories thereof, on which duty was payable at the time of removal and accordingly, the same were exempted under Notfn. No. 217/86 dated 2-4-1986, and (iii) The demand is time-barred, inasmuch as the Departmental authorities were aware that such articles were manufactured by the contractors with their labour in their factory compound where a shed had been erected. It is therefore not correct to say that the appellants suppressed the fact from the Department and to apply extended period for the purpose of demand. 4. As regards the first contention of the appellants that the job workers and the contractors are the actual manufacturers and not the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not produce copies of the contracts entered into by them with the job workers and the contractors for verification of the facts so as to arrive at a conclusion with regard to the actual terms and conditions at which the impugned goods were got manufactured. In view of these facts, therefore, the findings of the adjudicating authority that the appellants are the manufacturers of the goods cannot be faulted. Another contention raised by the appellants relates to the claim of exemption under Notfn. No. 217/86. In this, they rely on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Telco v. CCE, Pune - 1994 (70) E.L.T. 75 (T). In this case, by a majority decisions the Tribunal held that the exemption under Notfn. No. 217/86-C.E. dt. 2-4-1986 is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce it has been held in the above decisions that material handling equipment is used for processing goods in relation to the manufacture of the final product, such equipment are excluded from the scope and ambit of Notfn. No. 217/86. The items in dispute viz., trollies, bins and pallets are material handling equipment used for storing, stacking, handling and bringing together various materials/components used in the manufacture of motor vehicles of different types and are therefore, to be regarded as used for processing goods in relation to the manufacture of final product namely motor vehicles and hence fall outside the coverage of Notfn. No. 217/86. This issue is answered in the negative (Emphasis supplied). 5. In view of the above fin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
