9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 947X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... providing the benefits under ESI and PF Scheme to the workers employed by him. It is also not disputed that M/s. Bonafide Industrial Works were doing similar job work for other clients. There is no evidence on record to indicate that M/s. Bonafide Industrial Works is a dummy unit floated by the appellant or is an agent of the appellant. When the transactions between the appellant and the job worker M/s. Bonafide Industrial Works are on principal to principal basis in the sense that both are independent entities and the job worker cannot be said to be a hired labour, working under the control of the Appellant, it is the job worker who has to be treated as manufacturer and not the appellant and, therefore, there would not be any duty liabilit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner vide order-in-original dated 31-8-1998 by which the Dy. Commissioner holding that the appellant are manufacturers of steel racks and trolleys confirmed the duty demand of ₹ 75,034/- against them and imposed penalty of equal amount under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. On appeal being filed to the Commissioner (Appeals) against his order of the Dy. Commissioner, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order-in-appeal dated 13-7-2004 upheld the Dy. Commissioner s order. Against this order of the Commissioner (Appeals), this appeal has been filed. Since earlier stay on the recovery has been granted, which has since been expired, miscellaneous application has been filed for extension of the stay application. Since appeal itself i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was an allegation backed by evidence that the person, who manufactured/fabricated the goods on job work basis out of the raw materials supplied, was actually an agent of raw materials supplier or was dummy unit of the raw material supplier, the actual owner of the goods or is a hired labour of the raw materials supplier who has been hired by the raw material supplier for wages and works under his control. In this case, it was pleaded that there was no such evidence and it is not even disputed that M/s. Bonafide Industrial Works, who had fabricated the racks and trolleys on job work basis for the appellant, are not an independent entity. He, therefore, pleaded that the impugned order is not correct. 4. Shri Pramod Kumar, ld. Joint CDR, de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s contract would be covered under ESI and PF Scheme as per Labour Laws in force. Thus, in respect of the workers, employed by the job worker, it is the job worker who is responsible for providing the benefits under ESI and PF Scheme to the workers employed by him. It is also not disputed that M/s. Bonafide Industrial Works were doing similar job work for other clients. There is no evidence on record to indicate that M/s. Bonafide Industrial Works is a dummy unit floated by the appellant or is an agent of the appellant. When the transactions between the appellant and the job worker M/s. Bonafide Industrial Works are on principal to principal basis in the sense that both are independent entities and the job worker cannot be said to be a hired ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
