2008 (12) TMI 460 - AT - Central Excise

Appellate Tribunal rules on talcum powder manufacturer liability

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Ahmedabad held that M/s. Urnee Cosmetics was the actual manufacturer of talcum powder, not M/s. Lakme Ltd., despite the ... Manufacturer - Evidence - Manufacture under directions Issues:Manufacturing liability attribution, Control and guidance in manufacturing process, Principal to principal sale valuation, Dummy units existence in manufacturing process, Applicability of legal precedents, Manufacturer identification and duty imposition.Manufacturing Liability Attribution:The judgment revolves around determining the liability for manufacturing talcum powder between M/s. Lakme Ltd. and M/s. Urnee Cosmetics. The Commissioner held M/s. Lakme Ltd. liable as the manufacturer due to control and guidance exerted over M/s. Urnee Cosmetics. However, the Tribunal found that M/s. Urnee Cosmetics was the actual manufacturer, as they had the necessary infrastructure, machinery, and were independently undertaking the manufacturing process. The Tribunal emphasized that even if control and guidance were present, the actual manufacturing entity should be held responsible under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act.Control and Guidance in Manufacturing Process:The Tribunal analyzed the evidence regarding the manufacturing process, including the involvement of Shri D.J. Rebeiro, the power of Attorney holder in M/s. Granada Consultants. It was established that M/s. Urnee Cosmetics had the essential resources and autonomy in the manufacturing process, despite certain oversight by M/s. Lakme Ltd. The Tribunal highlighted that the control and guidance aspect did not negate the independent manufacturing activities of M/s. Urnee Cosmetics.Principal to Principal Sale Valuation:The judgment also addressed the issue of valuation based on a principal to principal sale agreement between M/s. Lakme Ltd. and M/s. Urnee Cosmetics. Drawing from a previous case involving M/s. Mistair Home Products, the Tribunal rejected the notion that M/s. Lakme Ltd. should be considered the manufacturer solely based on the agreement structure. The Tribunal emphasized that the actual manufacturing entity should bear the manufacturing liability, irrespective of the sales agreement terms.Dummy Units Existence in Manufacturing Process:The Tribunal differentiated the present case from precedents involving dummy units, where the entities lacked the capacity to manufacture. In this case, M/s. Urnee Cosmetics was found to have a functioning factory and the capability to produce talcum powder independently. This distinction led the Tribunal to conclude that the dummy unit precedent did not apply to the current scenario.Applicability of Legal Precedents:The judgment highlighted the relevance of legal precedents in determining manufacturing liability and duty imposition. By referencing past cases like M/s. Mistair Home Products and M/s. Sanjay Steel Co., the Tribunal clarified the principles governing manufacturer identification and duty attribution. The Tribunal's analysis underscored the importance of factual distinctions in applying legal precedents to specific cases.Manufacturer Identification and Duty Imposition:Ultimately, the Tribunal held that M/s. Urnee Cosmetics was the manufacturer of the talcum powder, absolving M/s. Lakme Ltd. (now M/s. Trent Ltd.) from duty imposition and associated penalties. By affirming M/s. Urnee Cosmetics' manufacturing status, the Tribunal overturned the Commissioner's decision and granted relief to the appellants. The judgment concluded by setting aside the impugned order and allowing all appeals in favor of the appellants.This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Ahmedabad underscores the intricacies of determining manufacturing liability, control in the manufacturing process, valuation based on sales agreements, relevance of legal precedents, and the critical aspect of identifying the actual manufacturer for duty imposition.