9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 114X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ame was produced by them in the factory. Admittedly, the Electricity Boards were treating the appellant as manufacturers based on the terms of the contract and tender. It is evident from records that manufacture of the goods had taken place at premises other than that of the appellant, largely at the job workers premises. Under the circumstances when manufacture takes place at a premises of a job worker, then he stepps into the shoes of the manufacturer in terms of section 2 (f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The very issue had come up for consideration in the case of Comet Technocom Pvt.Ltd. Ors. v. CCE ST, Kolkata-II [ 2018 (12) TMI 1771 - CESTAT KOLKATA ], wherein the Bench held ' it would be evident that in the present case, the j ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rned Commissioner has confirmed a duty amount of over Rs.1.25 crore besides holding the appellants liable to interest and penalty in terms of section 11AB and 11AC of the Central Excise Act [The Act] respectively. The order also imposes personal penalty on the proprietor in terms of Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 [The Rules]. 2. It is submitted by the appellant that they were purchasing insulators from M/s. India Pottery Ltd. and M/s. Allied Ceramics Ltd. during the year 2005 -2006 and 2006 -2007, galvanizing them and supplying back after galvanisation. The appellant firm was also supplying transmission line accessories and hardware fittings used by power supply corporations against bids and tenders floated by them. They stated that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... their factory for some other parties namely M/s. Indian Potteries Ltd. and M/s Allied Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. Further, during the period 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08, their clearance value did not exceed SSI exemption limit and for that reason the appellant had not taken Central Excise registration and were not required to pay the Central Excise duty. They further submitted that the job-workers were not made a party to this proceedings, nor any verification/enquiries were made in respect of the supplier of the goods from whom the goods were purchased. It is the appellant s case that embossing of the marking was for identification purpose of the goods and was indeed not a trade mark. 5. The learned AR for the department has reiterated the findin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eshold and therefore they were not required to take any registration for purchase and sale of the goods supplied to the electricity boards. For the reason no intimation to the department was also statutorily required to be tendered. Therefore they submit that they were not the manufacturers of the goods and were procuring the same from the job workers and supplying to different Vidyut Vitran Nigams. The appellants have also disputed the figures as shown in the balance sheet and taken as clearance value of manufactured goods. Based on assumptions and presumptions it cannot be held that the activities undertaken by them amounted to manufacture. Mainly on the basis of tender conditions that the manufacturer can alone submit the bid, the author ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt Udyog v. CCE, Nasik [2018 (363) ELT 924 (Tri.-Mumbai)] Thus in view of the law as flowing from the said cases we are of the view that a trader can under no circumstances be held to be a manufacturer and entrusted with attendant liabilities. 9. This bench of the Tribunal in the case of Commet Technocom Private Limited [Final Order No.FO/77097-77102/2018 dated 14.12.2018] had in a like case, held that the supplier of electrical item to the Electricity Board cannot be held to be a manufacturer, merely on the strength of supplying of goods and the manufacturer was the person who has undertaken job work manufacture on a contract basis. To similar effect is also the order of this tribunal in the case of S.A. Enterprises v. Commissioner of C.Ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uery from the Bench, the appellant submits that claim of being a manufacturer, was a mandatory requirement for participation in the tender bids. From the records, there is no other evidence culled out by the department to suggest that the appellant were in effect manufacturers of such electrical items and the same was produced by them in the factory. Admittedly, the Electricity Boards were treating the appellant as manufacturers based on the terms of the contract and tender. It is evident from records that manufacture of the goods had taken place at premises other than that of the appellant, largely at the job workers premises. Under the circumstances when manufacture takes place at a premises of a job worker, then he stepps into the shoes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
