9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 715X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ymond Ltd. (2014 (12) TMI 947 - CESTAT NEW DELHI) is applicable in this case. Secondly, we find that appellant has given back-to-back contract to the subcontractor by a written agreement, a fact which was not on records in the appellant's own case in an earlier issue wherein the same allegations were levelled against the appellant. This factual difference in the case in hand was not considered by the adjudicating authority while deciding the issue. Thus we hold that the impugned order is incorrect and unsustainable - Decided in favour of assessee - Appeal No. E/727/05 - Final Order No. A/3486/2015-WZB/EB - Dated:- 15-10-2015 - M V Ravindran, Member (J) And C J Mathew, Member (T) For the Appellant : Shri R D Wagley, Adv For t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order. 3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the appellant had undertaken a turn key contract for manufacturing of various furniture items at the site of the clients. He would submit that appellant had sub-contracted the entire activity to further contractor engaged by them for completion of the work. It is the submission that the subcontractor engaged by the appellant was obligated to execute the work by procuring their own material and labour. The fact as to procuring their own material and labour by the subcontractor is not in dispute. It is his submission that even if any manufacturing activity takes place, the duty liability has to be discharged by the manufacturer's, in this case the subcontracto ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the customer's site. It is also on record that the appellant had given the entire turnkey contract to their subcontractor. It is seen from the order in original at paragraph 38 that the subcontractors are procuring the raw material and labour required for executing the manufacturing of furniture at the site. In our considered view, the reasoning adopted by the adjudicating authority to confirm the demands is that the appellant is responsible to the client for the manufacturing of furniture. In our considered view this arguments of the learned departmental representative and the reasoning is incorrect and unacceptable for more than one reason. 5.1 Firstly, the Central Excise duty is payable on manufacturing activity by the manufactu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
