9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (6) TMI 33X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the respondents have also been called in question. 2.The petitioner is a Small Scale Industrial Unit engaged in the manufacture of machine parts. These parts are manufactured by the petitioner on its own account as also on `Job Work Basis' making use of raw materials supplied to it by the parties. In terms of Notification No. 175/86 dated 1st of March 1986, excisable goods manufactured by a Small Scale Industrial Unit are eligible for a concessional slab rate of duty prescribed therein. The petitioner it is not in dispute qualifies for the benefits admissible under the notification and has been availing of the same with effect from 1st of March 1986. 3.A classification list effective from 10th of March 1990 was submitted by the petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titled to the exemption in situations where the inputs for the job undertaken were supplied by another party. The order passed by the Asstt. Collector proceeds entirely on the basis of the aforementioned trade notice and has held that since the inputs in the instant case had been supplied to the petitioner by the principal manufacturers namely BHEL, Bangalore and BEML, KGF any work undertaken by the petitioner and any production out of such inputs on behalf of the said two companies did not qualify for the benefits admissible under Notification No. 175/86, dated 1-3-1986. The validity of a similar trade notice with similar purport was examined by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal who held that the suppliers of raw ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the case and the terms of the agreement between the raw material supplier and the job worker it is established that the job worker was no more than a dummy unit or has done work as a hired labour, the raw material supplier would be the principal manufacturer and the job worker treated as a workman or hired labour only. On the other hand if the facts and the terms of the agreement executed between the two establishes that the relationship between them is one of Principal and Principal then the job worker shall be treated as the manufacturer entitled to the benefit of the exemption admissible under the 1986 notification mentioned above. In the light of this clarification issued by the respondents, it is obvious that the view taken by the As ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... would be disentitled to claim exemptions regardless whether it was a genuine or a dummy unit. The Asstt. Collector therefore had no occasion to consider whether or not the petitioner was a dummy unit doing only hired labour work for the Principal manufacturers. The necessity to go into the issue has arisen on account of the decisions delivered by the Supreme Court resulting in the issue of Trade Notice No. 159/90 under which the genuineness or otherwise of the unit is the crucial test to be applied while granting an exemption to such units. 7.In the light of what is stated above order dated 20th of July 1990 passed by the Asstt. Collector, Central Excise is hereby quashed with a direction to him to re-examine the petitioner's request for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
