9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (10) TMI 275X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e learned Collector (Appeals) has held that the assessee are entitled to the benefit of exemption from pay of CED by application of Notification No. 175/86, dated 1-3-1986 and that the total aggregate value of clearances of goods of M/s. Asian Paints, who are mere suppliers of raw materials, cannot be clubbed with the clearances of the assessee, as they are mere job workers. E/4444/89-C : 3. In this case also the Revenue is aggrieved with the order of Collector (Appeals), Bombay vide his order-in-appeal dated 6-6-1989. By this order he has allowed the refund claim of assessee for Rs. 95,966.51. The Asstt. Collector had held that the assessee are hired labour for M/s. Asian Paints and further held to be not entitled to the benefit of Not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oratories (P) Ltd. v. CCE as reported in 1990 (50) E.L.T. 210 (Guj.) and that of H. Guru Instruments (P) Ltd. v. CCE as reported in 1987 (27) E.L.T. 269 (Tribunal). 7. Shri Ignatius, learned Consultant asserted that the assessees were independent job workers and there was no evidence of any camouflage or they being dummy manufacturers of M/s. Asian Paints. M/s. Asian Paints were merely supplying raw materials that by itself did not make them hired labour of M/s. Asian Paints. He contended that the assessees were independent SSI Units with different ownerships and M/s. Asian Paints had no interest in it and hence the assessees were mere job workers. He contended that in M/s. H. Guru Instrument s case, it was found that they were dummy ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... infirmity in the findings and we uphold the same. Both the rulings relied by learned JDR are not applicable to the facts of this case and they are clearly distinguishable. The ruling of this Bench in the case of CCE v. Natraj Paints (P) Ltd. in Order Nos. 60-61/90-C, dated 30-1-1990 are fully applicable to the facts of this case. Applying the ratio of this case, the Revenue appeals are dismissed. 10. As regards the assessee s appeal regarding the dismissal of two refund claims of Rs. 24035.86 and 3003.07, they have asserted that the duty had been paid under protest and that the claim is not time barred. They have not placed any evidence on this nor argued on this issue except to say that they are supplemental claims. Therefore, this appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
