TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (4) TMI 37
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(H-IV) CE dated 31-12-2004, passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excuse (Appeals-I), Hyderabad. 2. The appellants were issued with Show Cause Notice for payment of differential duty of Rs. 82,611.00 on the ground that they had manufactured goods on job work basis for M/s. IVP Ltd. and as per agreement dated 27-8-1982, M/s. IVP Ltd. provided plant and machinery to the appellants for man....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....authority that they are the job workers of M/s. IVP Ltd. is not correct. According to them the appellants are independent Private Limited Company. If the departments contention is that they are the job workers of M/s. IVP Ltd., then the department should have demanded duty from M/s. IVP Ltd. In order to sustain the Revenue's contention that the appellants are actually puppets in the hands of M/s. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....calculating the discounts. The Commissioner (Appeals) has given a finding that when M/s. IVP Ltd. have supplied entire plant and machinery, raw materials, specifications, brand name for product to be manufactured and took back the entire output of finished goods, the adjudicating authority was right in holding that the appellants to be a job worker. According to him, the goods were cleared on stoc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nst them. In the case of Super Printers v. Collector of central Excise, Hyderabad [1987 (30) E.L.T. 745 (Tribunal)], the raw materials were supplied by the customers and they were processed according to the customers' specification and the trade mark of the customers were used on the goods. In that case, it was held that the processor is the actual manufacturer. Further in the case of Vazir Sultan....