TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appellate Tribunal Affirms Manufacturer Status for Job Work Scheme in Aluminum Conductor Case</h1> <h3>COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., AHMEDABAD Versus PREM CONDUCTOR</h3> COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., AHMEDABAD Versus PREM CONDUCTOR - 2008 (222) E.L.T. 145 (Tri. - Ahmd.) , 2009 (15) S.T.R. 750 (Tri. - Ahmd.) Issues:Interpretation of manufacturing process under Rule 57F for availing small scale exemption.Analysis:The case involves an appeal by the Revenue against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the manufacturing process of aluminum conductors by M/s Abhay Conductors. The appellant's manufacturing operations were closed for a period, during which raw materials were sent to M/s Prem Conductors for manufacturing the conductors. The Revenue alleged that M/s Abhay Conductors were not the manufacturers but merely testing the goods, which would exceed the small scale exemption limit. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) accepted that M/s Abhay Conductors were the manufacturers under the job work scheme, supported by a letter of permission from the jurisdictional Astt. Commissioner. The Commissioner relied on the contract with Gujarat Electricity Board, stating that testing and inspection were prerequisites conducted at M/s Abhay Conductors' premises, establishing them as the manufacturer.The Commissioner (Appeals) based their decision on previous Tribunal judgments, such as Rolls Prints Packaging Ltd. and M/s D.S. Screen (P) Ltd., emphasizing that processes like inspection, counting, and packing done after processing inputs are ancillary to manufacturing. The Tribunal's decision in Powerica Ltd. highlighted that goods must meet specific parameters, like ISI markings, to be marketable. In this case, the goods at M/s Abhay Conductors underwent testing, inspection, and packing, making them marketable. The seized goods, duly entered in RG-1 register, could not have been confiscated. The appellate authority found no fault in the Commissioner's interpretation of the law and the contract clauses between the parties, concluding that the aluminum conductors completed their manufacturing process at M/s Abhay Conductors' premises.Ultimately, the Appellate Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeals, affirming the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision. The judgment highlights the importance of understanding the manufacturing process under Rule 57F for availing exemptions and the significance of testing, inspection, and packaging in determining the manufacturer of goods.
TaxTMI 