2010 (3) TMI 392

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l outlets. The storage tanks and prefabricated steel structures had been manufactured by the job workers out of the MS plates supplied by the appellants. The Department, being of the view that it is the appellants who are liable to pay duty in respect of these steel structures, issued a show cause notice dated 9-6-2003 for demand of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 87,53,478/- in respect of storage tanks and steel structures got manufactured by the appellant through job workers and supplied to the appellants' retail outlets during the period from June, 1998 to March, 2003. The Show-cause-notice was issued by invoking longer limitation period under proviso to Section 11A(1) of Central Excise Act, 1944 and besides the duty, also demanded ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d as the manufacturer and it is the job workers who would be liable to pay the duty, that the Tribunal in the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. CCE, Bhopal reported in 2004 (174) E.L.T. 31 has held that in respect of steel storage tank got manufactured by M/s. HPCL through job workers out of the raw-material and design and specifications provided by them, it is the job workers who would be liable to pay the duty and the duty, if any, payable would be by the job workers, that same view was taken by the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Mechanical Constructors v. CCE, Bhopal (Final Order No. 649/09/Ex. dated 5-8-09) [2009 (248) E.L.T. 532 (T)] wherein the Tribunal held that M/s. Mechanical Constructors who had manufactured storage tanks f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e appellant and the job workers are not on principal to principal basis. The Tribunal in the case of Kerala State Electricity Board v. CCE, reported in 1990 (47) E.L.T. 62 has held that in respect of PCC Poles got manufactured by Kerala State Electricity Board through contractors on job work basis out of raw-material and specifications provided by the Electricity Board, it is the contractors who would be liable to pay the duty and not the Kerala Electricity Board. This judgment of the Tribunal has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide judgment reported in 1990 (47) E.L.T. A61 (S.C.). We find that the same view had been taken by the Tribunal in the case of HPCL v. CCE, Bhopal (supra) and Mechanical Constructors v. CCE, Bhopal (supr....