9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (5) TMI 76X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ready for the purpose of using in the repairing of compressor must be held to be an activity of manufacture and the Tribunal has confirmed the demand only in respect of "Stators". But, insofar as the application of extended period of limitation provided under Section 11A is concerned, we do not think that the Tribunal is justified because it was not clear as to whether if any part is used for the purpose of repairing a machinery would amount to manufacture. In fact, the Tribunal on a detailed analysis and after going into several processes carried out by the appellant, came to the conclusion that the stators which were used in the repairing of the compressors involved manufacturing activity. This circumstance itself shows that there was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stator from the job workers results in manufacture and initiated proceedings for adjudication of tax. 2.The appellant contended that the job workers are manufacturers of stators and not the appellant as stators are received from the job workers in complete technically functional state. The activities undertaken by the appellants are only to use the stator and not manufacture the stators. The appellants also challenged the invocation of the longer period of limitation, which was available to the appellants only in case of suppression of fraud, coalition or wilful statement or contravention of rules to the payment of duty. 3.The Adjudicating Authority held that the job workers is the manufacturer of the stator and not the appellants ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... b work of winding of the stator, but such stator would not be ready for use in the compressor and would be subject to the processes of pressing for shaping by hydraulic press. This would go to show that the stator as such could not have been fitted and used in the compressor for which purpose it has been formed. Further, varnishing was to be done by the appellants and the same was done to provide necessary insulation and it became a finished product only in the hands of the appellants. Therefore, the activity carried on by the appellant was considered to be one of manufacturer because they were carrying out the full range of processes for bringing into existence the 'stator' and this range of process carried out by them was exactly the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
