TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (5) TMI 59
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Rengaraju, SDR for the Respondent Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy Heard both sides. 2. There are three issues involved in this appeal; (i) Whether the appellants who are the contractors engaged by the Tamilnadu Electricity Board (TNEB) to manufacture PSC poles are to be considered as manufacturers or the TNEB is to be treated as the manufacturer. (ii) If the appellant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ribunal also noted that on the other hand the statement of facts showed that the Board has argued that they were the manufacturers. In the case of Kerala State Electricity Boar Vs. CCE 1990 (47) ELT 62 (T), it was held by the Tribunal that the Electricity Board is the customer and the contractor is the actual manufacturer. This decision of the Tribunal has been upheld by the Hon ble Supreme Court ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng cement and steel to the appellants but it is the appellants who are manufacturing the PSC poles at the contracted price. They are also paying water charges, electricity charges as well as rent for pole casting bed and tools and plants supplied by the Board. They are also paying rent for use of TNEB s land. Hence, keeping in view the various terms of the contract as well as the earlier decisions....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Credit Rules so as to enable the original authority to allow credit, subject to verification. Accordingly, we remand the appeal for this limited purpose to the original authority who shall give an adequate opportunity of hearing to the appellants and allow them credit on inputs used in the manufacture of PSC poles subject to carrying out necessary verification. 6. As regards the penalty ....