TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1996 (6) TMI 243
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en they manufacture goods out of raw materials supplied by M/s. Elgi Equipments Ltd. within the licensed premises of M/s. Elgi Equipments although in a separate shed. 2. The learned lower authority has held that since the plastics components of the horns (cones) manufactured in the shed of M/s. MRW and the horn body manufactured by surface finishing the body, casting and drilling of holes and threading the same excisable goods emerged in the hands of M/s. MRW and they were therefore the manufacturers and since the goods carried the brand name of M/s. Elgi Equipments affixed thereto the appellants were not eligible to the benefit of Notification 175/86 in terms of Para 7 of the Notification 175/86. The appellants however contended that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pleaded that in the above decisions the supplier of raw material has been held to be the manufacturer. He further cited the following judgments in support of his plea that drilling of holes and cutting etc. does not amount to manufacture : (1)  1985 (22) E.L.T. 123 in the case of CCE v. Vulcan Level Ltd., Pune. (2) 1985 (19) E.L.T. 541 in the case of Ajit India Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE Bombay/Madras (3) 1985 (19) E.L.T. 606 in the case of Mould & Dies Pvt Ltd. v. CCE. In regard to affixation of brand name he pleaded that the appellants did not affix the brand name on the body casting as the casting already had the brand name affixed/cast in it at the time of receipt in the factory of M/s. MRW and for that reason they cannot be co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of which there is no contrary averments. Surface finishing and polishing as required were done and threading was also provided so that the other components could be fitted inside the horn. He pleaded that by virtue of these operations carried out it has to be held that these castings after these operations emerged as an indentifiable part of the horn. He pleaded that the component, cones manufactured are identifiable parts of the horns and they were meant for fitment in the body by screwing in the threaded holes. He pleaded that both the items were identifiable part of the horn and are goods. He pleaded that as could be seen from the part catalogue shown by the appellants, there is no need for the department to make any further enquiry as ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ric horn. By subjecting these operations carried out, we hold that a new product has emerged. So far as the horn cone is concerned, the same was manufactured out of the raw material supplied by the M/s. Elgi equipments. We find that an identifiable product emerged for fitment into the body as mentioned in the catalogue. Therefore, we hold that the item has to be considered a part which can be easily replaced and for that reason, it has to be held as a marketable product. We observe that a plea has been taken that MRW are not manufacturers of the goods. We observe that the appellants have their own machinery, labour force and working shed and it has not been shown from the agreements as to how they can be considered as a hired labour of M/s.....