1996 (8) TMI 229

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s Industries but they do not appear to have filed any appeal. 2. It was noticed by the Department that during 1987-88, the Appellants had fabricated trusses, purlins etc. and had used them in erection of their factory sheds, but had not paid any Excise duty on the items fabricated by them. Enquiry was made and vide letter dated 7-5-1991, the Appellants stated that they had got the said items fabricated on contract basis from job-workers M/s. Shrinivas Industries. The Appellants however, admitted that they had supplied the necessary material to the said job-workers and had removed the same from the factory of job-workers in their own Trucks and had paid job charges to M/s. Shrinivas Industries, but there was no written contract. Mr. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....1988 (38) E.L.T. 196 (Tribunal). In his submission, thus on both the counts, the order of the authority below deserves to be set aside. 5. Mr. Krishnamurthy has however pleaded that there is no dispute that the material was supplied by the appellants and M/s. Shrinivas Industries only charged their labour charges and as such they would fall within the category of hired labourers. He has further pleaded that by processing, different product, known distinctly in the market come into existence and hence the said item have to be categorised as manufactured attracting duty liability. 6. Considering submissions, there is no challenge to the factual position to the extent that raw material was being purchased in the name of the app....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... on record. Merely because, the raw material is supplied by the appellant, the same would not make M/s. Shrinivas Industries as hired labourers particularly when they had their own factory/machinery on which they undertook the processing work. Absence of any written contract also would not alter the position. 9. The plea that M/s. Shrinivas Industries were the job-workers therefore has to be accepted. In the result, the said finding of the authority below cannot be sustained and has to be set aside. Consequently the duty demand raised on the Appellants branding them as the manufacturers also cannot be sustained and has to be set aside. 10. Plea is also taken that even otherwise, the process would not tantamount to `manufactu....