TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (9) TMI 956
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-1988 to 28-2-1995 and besides this, has imposed penalty of Rs. 25 lakhs under Rule 173Q(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Appeal No. E/94/2006-EX is against the Order-in-Original, dated 29-9-1995 passed by the Commissioner in respect of show cause notice, dated 6-8-1988 by which he has confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 33,30,432/- against the appellant for the period 1-3-1986 to 30-4-1988. Appeal No. E/2648 and 2649/2007-EX are against the order-in-appeal No. 448-449(HKJ) C.E./JPR-II, dated 16-7-2007 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) by which he has upheld the duty demands of Rs. 6,89,868/- for the period from 1-7-1990 to 30-11-1990 and duty demand of Rs. 9,24,630/- for the period from March, 1993 to June, 1993 and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 24-3-2004 [2004 (166) E.L.T. 145 (S.C.)] held that - (a) The activity of the conversion of lead and aluminum sheets into electrodes amounts to manufacture; and (b) The electrodes so manufactured are marketable and same would be liable to duty; However, the Apex Court remanded the matter to the Tribunal to decide the question as to who is the manufacturer. 1.2 The Tribunal vide Final Order No. 17-18/05-B, dated 17-12-2004 remanded the matter to the original adjudicating authority for deciding the above question. The original adjudicating authority vide Order-in-Original, dated 29-9-2005 confirmed the duty demands of Rs. 2,66,03,536/- for the period from 1-5-1988 to 28-2-1995 and impos....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed as manufacturer and hence, liable to pay duty and or it is the job workers, who are to be treated as manufacturer and, therefore, liable to pay duty. 2. Heard both the sides. 3. Shri B.L. Narsimhan, Advocate, ld. Counsel for the appellant, pleaded that the appellant's contracts with their job workers were on principal to principal basis, that the job workers had brought their own machinery and equipments and had employed their own labourers, that just because the job workers had fabricated electrodes out of the raw materials supplied by the appellant and as per designs given by the appellant and under their supervision, the job workers cannot be treated as hired labour of the appellant, that the findings of the Commissioner a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....peals). 5. We have considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. 6. The appellant had got the zinc and lead electrodes fabricated through job workers in their own premises out of the raw materials and design supplied by them. Though the job worker had brought their own machinery and appliances and their own workers, the job had been done in the appellant's premises and under the appellant's supervision. It is seen that in terms of the appellant's contract with their job workers, the job workers were to pay the minimum wages to the skilled and unskilled labourers as per the Government's orders and were to comply with the Government's regulations in this regard. In case of injury to any worker in any acci....