9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (11) TMI 594X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Traders P. Ltd. was a factory which came in existence in 1982. M/s. Vishrut Investments Traders Pvt. Ltd. was a factory which came in existence in 1984. Excisable goods were not manufactured by M/s. ISPL Inds. Ltd. but by M/s. Vishrut and Uchit. There were no formal agreements entered into, but that the goods were got manufactured on job work basis. The raw materials were supplied by M/s. ISPL Inds. Ltd. and the goods were despatched to M/s. ISPL Inds. Ltd. or to their customers. The two job workers, M/s. Vishrut Investments Traders Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Uchit Investments Traders Pvt. Ltd. had their own registrations under the Central Excise law as well as under other laws such as Shop and Establishment Act etc. These two units filed de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vestment Traders Pvt. Ltd. were the job workers and thus liable to pay duty on the goods manufactured by them, or whether they were hired labour of M/s. ISPL, making M/s. ISPL the manufacturer in terms of 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The grounds on which the allegations were made and sustained are given in paragraph 3.0.0. of the show cause notice. The salient grounds are that M/s. ISPL were advising the M/s. Vishrut and Uchit as to what value was to be declared for payment of duty, that the production program of both units was planned by M/s. ISPL, that the costs of damaged/rejected materials was borne by M/s. ISPL, that the two units were manufacturing solely on behalf of ISPL, that the tax was deducted at source from the job p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of defective goods had to be borne by the job workers but where the goods after being tested, were supplied to buyers and when they were returned as defective, the cost was borne by M/s. ISPL. The Commissioner did not go into this difference at all. 9. As regards the funding of the two units by M/s. ISPL the claim was made before the Commissioner that no money was ever advanced to M/s. Uchit Investment Traders Pvt. Ltd. for starting the unit. It was claimed the money given for time to time was adjusted towards job work charges. As far as M/s. Vishrut Investment Traders Pvt. Ltd. is concerned the claim is made that M/s. ISPL owed them substantial sums for long periods. These arguments were also not dealt with by the ld. Commissioner. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or of Central Excise, Vadodara [1994 (73) E.L.T. 450 (Tribunal)] on similar ground the job workers were held to be manufacturers. 13. The Gujarat High Court in their judgment in the case of Prolite Engineering Co. v. Union of India [1995 (75) E.L.T. 257] had held the job workers to be manufacturer where the raw materials were received from the Principal manufacturers, where the machinery, labour and capital belonged to the job work and when there was no management control over the job workers. This judgment applies squarely to the facts before us. 14. The Commissioner has relied upon the Tribunal judgment in the case of Pawan Biscuit Company (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise [1991 (53) E.L.T. 595 (Tribunal)] which dealt with the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
