9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (2) TMI 634X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... belonged to its factory manager, Shri T.J. Antony (Furnishing Centre) and the other to his son Shri Binu Antony (Binu Gardens). M/s. Duroflex Ltd. supplied the entire machinery, raw material and other inputs required for the manufacture of its products; entire production at the two premises was stock transferred to Duroflex Ltd. who thereafter cleared the same. Wages for workers for those two premises was paid by Duroflex Ltd. On 9-1-1998, the premises of Duroflex Ltd. was visited by Central Excise Officers who seized certain records and materials. As a result of investigation, show cause notice dated 24-11-1999 covering the period from 1995 to 1998 was issued alleging that M/s. Furnishing Centre and M/s. Binu Gardens were manufacturers of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lex Ltd. is in appeal against the finding that they are not the manufacturers of the goods in question while M/s. Furnishing Centre and M/s. Binu Gardens are in appeal against the duty and penally holding them to be the manufacturers. 4. The three issues arising for determination in these appeals are as under :- (1) Who is the manufacturer? - Is Duroflex Ltd. the manufacturer? (2) Whether the benefit of exemption in terms of Notification 115/75-C.E. is admissible to the goods. (3) Whether the demands are barred by limitation. The premises on which the manufacturing activity is carried out by M/s. Furnishing Centre belongs to one Mr. T.J. Antony and his wife. T.J. Antony is also the factory manager of M/s. Duroflex Ltd. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gory of the excluded goods in Notification 115/75, and have been manufactured in a factory covered by industries specified at serial number of the Schedule annexed to the notification, viz. Coir Industry. In the case of the same manufacturer Duroflex Ltd. vide Final Order No. 1639/2004, dated 25-10-2004 [2005 (180) E.L.T. 235 (Tri. - Bang.)], the Tribunal has held that what is relevant for the purpose of Notification 115/75 is that all goods other than those excluded in the notification itself, and manufactured by a factory covered by Coir Industry, are entitled to exemption. The Tribunal has held that the exemption cannot be denied on the ground that the product is not a product of the Coir Industry. Following the ratio of the above order, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
