TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1995 (12) TMI 120
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dras. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants M/s. Vazir Sultan Tabacoo Industries Limited (for short M/s. VST) are holding Central Excise Licence for the manufacture of cigarettes falling under Tariff Item 4-II (2). They are also manufacturing shells and slides which are utilised for the packing of their brands of cigarettes. These shells manufactured by them were being assessed provisionally under TI 68 as per the interim directions of the Delhi High Court. However, with effect from 3-2-1982, the appellants M/s. VST stopped the manufacture of slides in their own premises and have been getting these slides manufactured on their behalf from the other appellant M/s. Samanto Laminates Private Limited, Moula ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tes Pvt. Ltd. to follow all the Central Excise formalities on their behalf in terms of Notification No. 305/77, dated 5-11-1977. In the same Show Cause Notice the other appellants M/s. Samanto Laminates Pvt. Ltd. were also asked to show cause why they should not be called upon to take out a licence under T.I. 17 (3) and to file a classification list accordingly and also to file price list under Part VII adding the profit margin of M/s. VST. They were also asked to show cause as to why the exemption claimed by them under Notification No. 77/83 as amended be not denied on the slides. 3. The issue involved in the present case is, as to whether the appellants M/s. VST Industries Ltd. are required to take out a licence under Notifica....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../s. Samanto Laminates Pvt. Ltd. (for short SLPL). All transactions between M/s. SLPL and M/s. VST are on a principal-to principal basis in the ordinary course of business and at arm's length and they are, therefore, manufacturers within their own right. The mere fact that the raw [material] for the manufacture of slides was supplied to the appellants by M/s. VST Industries cannot lead to the conclusion that the appellants M/s. SLPL [are] not the manufacturer of the slides. In this premises, he submitted that he cannot be concluded that appellants M/s. SLPL [are] manufacturing the slides "on account" or "on behalf of M/s. VST", and thus the provisions of Notification No. 305/77, dated 5-11-1977 have no application to the slides m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Assistant Collector and so the Collector (Appeals) has held that the slides were manufactured by the appellants M/s. SLPL on behalf of M/s. VST out of the raw material supplied by the latter and, therefore, M/s. VST are directed to either to take out a licence under TI-68 in the premises of M/s. SLPL or authorise the latter to follow all Central Excise formalities as per Notiication No. 305/77 and as the slides were manufactured and cleared on behalf of M/s. VST and as they (M/s. VST) were not eligible for any small-scale exemption, duty has to be discharged right from the beginning and consequently M/s. SLPL should also file price list in respect of such slides giving assessable values based on cost construction and adding the profit mar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....anies Act and registered as a small scale industrial unit. They offered to make slides for the other appellants M/s. VST as per their specifications provided M/s. VST supply the raw material to them. They also requested M/s. VST to loan them a certain machinery. Accordingly, certain spare machines on hire and under written arrangement were given by M/s. VST to the appellants without putting any restriction as regards the use of the machinery. The appellants M/s. Samanto Laminates Pvt. Ltd. obtained a licence for the manufacture of slides under the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 and employed their own staff and labour, having their own separate premises, power and water supply and the risk of the business remained clearly with them. There ....