9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (2) TMI 400X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eran, Member (J) (Oral)]. The Revenue is aggrieved with Order-in-Original No. 7/99, dated 8-7-1999 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore. In the impugned order, he has examined all the facts and has agreed with the assessee that there is no process of manufacture carried out in their factory and hence, the question of discharging duty does not arise. In this regard, he has rel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts that the ratio clearly applied in all fours and the appeal of Revenue is required to be rejected. 3. Ld. SDR, Smt. R. Bhagya Devi reiterated the departmental view. 4. On a careful consideration and on perusal of the impugned order and also the order of the Tribunal rendered in the assessee s own case in Appeal No. E/440/98 (B.1), dated 23-3-98, we find that the issue is totally in favour of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rvision over the manufacturing process, cannot be treated as a manufacturer of the goods. In such cases the transaction is on a principal to principal basis. In the ordinary course of business, in such cases, the actual manufacturer was engaged in the manufacturing activity on his own since he manufactures the goods according to his own schedule, budget, capacity, availability of raw-materials, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n CCE v. Gujarat State Electricity Board, [1996 (81) E.L.T. 284] the Tribunal had held that manufacture of pre-stressed concrete poles fabricated by contractors on job work basis for the State Electricity Board would not make the Electricity Board manufacturer. In a more recent case, in Allied Bitumen Complex v. CCE [1997 (90) E.L.T. 374], the Tribunal had held that the job worker and not the supp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ind that the Collector has, in the impugned order, brought out the legal position correctly. In these premises, we find no reason as to interfere with the order of collector vacating the duty demand from the Respondents and setting aside the order of seizure of the goods from the respondents premises. 6. The Departmental Appeal is accordingly rejected and the impugned order upheld. Respectfu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
