9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 657X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ards - time limitation - HELD THAT:- From the Show Cause Notice and order-in-original, it is not found that any investigation was taken up by the Department to check up as to whether the Appellant has the facility to manufacture such electrical items in their factory. Admittedly, the Electricity Boards were treating the the Appellant as the manufacturer and receiving the goods. Therefore, the manufacture had to be taking place in some place other than the premises of the Appellant. In this case, it is more or less certain that the manufacturing has taken place at the job worker's premises only. In such a case, in terms of section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944, when the manufacture takes place at the premises of the job worker and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion line falling under chapter 7326 and the same was being supplied to various electricity Boards. The Department gathered information that the Appellants were supplying G.S. Stay Sets, Earthing Sets, Insulator Pins, Hardware Fittings, etc. to various Electricity Boards/Nigams throughout India. Investigation was taken up and during the verification, the Appellant took the stand that they are getting the contracts from various Electricity Boards for various electrical items for which the Company does not have any manufacturing facility. These goods are outsourced and either they buy out the entire item and sell it to the Electricity Board or they get the items manufactured by the job worker and such manufactured goods from the job worker ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... suppliers responded to the summons issued by the Revenue. Therefore, he submits that in respect of other 27 suppliers, no statement was recorded, neither any investigation was taken up from their side. He submits that the Department did not make out any effort to locate the other job workers to find out the kind of job work which was being undertaken by them. In the Show Cause Notice, it is alleged that some of the job workers were also using the name and emblem and logo of the appellant. He submits that such names and logos were used so as to identify the product. The Ld. Counsel submits that in case of job worker, the job worker should be treated as the person who is the manufacturer and who manufactures goods in terms of section 2(f) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d demand. 6. Heard both sides, perused the appeal papers and the documents produced before us. 7. We find that the Appellant is basically manufacturer of various components of wagons. They have also procured orders for various electrical items from the Electricity Boards and have been regularly supplying the same to them. In the recorded statement, their Director Mr. Raman Singh has clearly stated that they don't have any facility to manufacture such electrical items for supply to the Electricity Board. They have been procuring the same either on outright purchase basis or they are getting the same done on job work basis from various smaller manufacturers and supplying to the Electricity Board as if that was manufactured by the Appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he manufacturers and the liability of paying excise duty is with them. From the above, it would be evident that in the present case, the job workers of the assessee company were independent contractors/manufacturers and hence, the assessee company and/or its directors cannot be saddled with any liability of payment of excise duty and/or consequential penalty with respect to the goods so manufactured by the said job workers. [Emphasis supplied] 8. Same issue has come up before this bench in the case of SA Enterprise, which has held as under :- IV. Quantum of goods obtained through job work was quite small as compared to the quantum of trading sales. No incriminating statement had been obtained from any job worker or specific evidence adduced ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lied] 9. The facts in the present case are similar/identical. Therefore, we do we find that the ratio laid down in the above two case laws are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. Accordingly, we find merits in the arguments of the Appellant and allow the Appeal by setting aside the impugned order. 10. So far as the Appellant's pleading on account of time bar is concerned, it is seen that the period involved is up to 2006 and the Show Cause Notice has been issued in 2008. But it is also seen that in the intervening period, the Department has proceeded with issuing summons and the recording of statements of various persons. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Revenue was aware of all the details by 2006 itself. Only af ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
