9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (2) TMI 265X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... igh Court in their judgment in the case of Jumnadas v. C.N. Nadia and also in Supreme Court decision in the case of Shee Agencies and in Bombay High Court decision in the case of Shri Bajria Gopi Lal v. Bal Kundari. The above decisions have held that a person, who supplied raw materials and get it manufactured by other persons, will fall within the definition of `manufacturer' under Section 2(f). Hence in the case of Urea Formaldehyde Moulding Powder M/s Praga Industries (P) Ltd., are held as manufacturers." 2. Aggrieved by this order of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, M/s Modoplast (P) Ltd., filed an appeal before the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Madras who vide his Order No. 465/81, dated 12-6-1981 set aside the order of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise and allowed the appeal on the ground that Urea Formaldehyde Moulding Powder had been manufactured by M/s Modoplast (P) Ltd. and that they should only be considered as the `manufacturers' for the purpose of Notification No. 80/80. 3. Not satisfied with the order passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Madras, Government of India, issued review show cause notice under Section 36 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o their completion. The only artificiality which this inclusive definition of `manufacturer' creates is that a person has also to be construed as a manufacturer even if he does not direct engage himself in the manufacturing activity but employs hired labour for that purpose. According to the learned consultant, in the absence of any specific provision in the Central Excises Act to the effect that a person will be treated as manufacturer if he gets his goods manufactured from others, the actual manufacturer whether he is manufacturing his own goods or for others will always be a manufacturer for Central Excise purposes. He drew our attention towards the various decisions of various High Courts and of this Tribunal in support of his contention that customer supplying raw materials to another for manufacture of goods in accordance with his drawing and specifications is got a manufacturer within the meaning of Section 2(f) of Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. It is a person who actually manufactures the goods that can be termed as manufacturer. Special Bench B of this Tribunal in the case of M/s Lucas India Limited, Madras v. Collector of Central Excise, Madras (1984 (16) E.L.T. 415) h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e not only a person who employs hired labour in the production or manufacture of excisable goods, but also any person who engages in their production or manufacture on his own account." This definition lays down two things, the first in that a person who manufactures excisable goods through hired labour is the manufacturer of these goods. The second is that a person who manufactures excisable goods on his own account is also a manufacturer. This definition is an inclusive one and it has to be seen whether the respondent is a manufacturer for the purpose of the Act on account of the other provisions of the Act or the Rules. Allahabad High Court in the case of Ganga Dhar Ram Chand v. Collector of Central Excise, U.P. (1979-E.L.T.-J-597) held that by mere supplying the raw materials, the customer does not become manufacturer. Their Lordships observed that the provisions of Section 6 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, read with rules 43 and 44 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, lead to the conclusion that it is the owner or occupier of the factory where the goods are manufactured who is the `manufacturer' and not a person who merely brings his own raw materials for manufa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s (P) Ltd. It cannot be said that M/s. Modoplast (P) Ltd. - respondent is a dummy company. The decision relied upon by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, who passed the order-in-original, would apply only to such cases where the actual manufacturers were found to be dummy and faked or were working under the direct control and supervision of the supplier of raw materials and the transactions between them were not on principal to principal basis. Here it is neither alleged nor it is proved that the respondents is a dummy company of M/s. Praga Industries (P) Ltd. 12. Following the decisions of Allahabad High Court in Ganga Dhar Ram Chandra (Supra), Philips India Limited and others (supra) and that of Special Bench-B of this Tribunal in Lucas India Service Ltd. Madras (supra), we hold that the respondent i.e. Modoplast (P) Limited are the manufacturers of these goods i.e. Urea Formaldehyde Moulding Powder within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944, but we would like to observe that they are liable to pay duty on the manufactured goods i.e. Urea Formaldehyde Moulding Powder if the benefit of Notification No. 80/80 is extended to them. Chargi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
