Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2005 (4) TMI 347

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... a hired labourer. Findings recorded in the remand Order 935/99, dated 4-5-1999 is reproduced herein below. On a careful consideration of the submissions, we notice that the demands have been raised on the item Aluminium Cable Trays and accessories which had been manufactured admittedly in the premises of M/s. SEE. The appellants and M/s. SEE have an independent contract that lays down all the terms and specifications of the contract. M/s. SEE are Engineering firm who have all the expertise and necessary know-how for the purpose of manufacture of the item in question. The Commissioner has merely held that they are hired labour without due examination of the terms of the contract and without giving a detailed finding thereon and therefore, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 1999 (31) RLT 5. This judgment pertains to 17 appellants who had brought into existence various types of items and the Tribunal has examined these items in detail and held that they are not goods. In this regard, the Tribunal has relied on Supreme Court judgment noted therein and several of the Tribunal judgments. In the case of Hindustan Construction Company Ltd., v. CCE as reported in 1997 (89) E.L.T. 123, the Tribunal has held that Steel ribs comes into existence of the first time inside the tunnel as a part of immovable property and it cannot be subjected to levy of duty under heading 7038.90. These ruling of the Tribunal which are in the light of Apex Court judgment are required to be examined by the Commissioner and a clear finding i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r contractor was in the nature of a hired labourer and not on principal to principal basis. He has held that the item that arose in the manufacture is not an immovable property but goods excisable to duty. The appellants are not aggrieved with the second portion. However their plea is that the relationship between them and their contractor is on principal to principal basis. They point out to the plea raised by M/s. Sneha Engineering Equipment in the earlier proceedings wherein they admitted to be the manufacturer and also claiming the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 as they are registered as SSI unit and being eligible for benefit of clearance of Rs. 20 lakhs in each financial year. Their plea has been noted in para 6 of the above said .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... issue between the same parties as reported in 2002 (144) E.L.T. 108 (T) and submits that in terms of the contract entered by them, the relationship between them and their contractor is to be held on principal to principal basis and not that of a hired labour. He also referred to Board Circular No. 56/56/94 C. Ex., dated 14-9-1994 on this issue. Further reference is made to the ratio of the following judgments. (1) Techma Engineering Enterprises, Calcutta v. CCE, Calcutta [1987 (27) E.L.T. 460] (2) Fushion Polymers Ltd. [1991 (56) E.L.T. 665 (T) = 1991 (37) ECR 466] (3) Kerala State Electricity Board v. CCE [1990 (47) E.L.T. 62 (Tri.)] (4) Basant Industries v. CCE, Kanpur [1995 (75) E.L.T. 21 S.C.)] (5) Thungabh .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... and had prima facie expressed the view that the contract indicated the relationship to be that of principal to principal and not as a hired labour. We have examined the issue and find that the appellants had entered into an agreement with their contractors namely M/s. Sneha Engineering Equipment. The contract clearly discloses that M/s. Sneha Engineering is an independent unit registered with the department and they have all the clippings of an independent job worker. The Commissioner is not disputing the fact that M/s. Sneha Engineering Equipment to be job worker but holds them to be hired labourer solely on the terms in the contract which shows that taxes and duties will not be applicable to be a ground to hold that as the assessee is no .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates