TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (12) TMI 1771
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 01/Denovo/Commr./CE/Kol- II/Adjn./2012-13 dated 30/11/2012. These appeals are filed by Revenue against the findings of the Adjudicating Authority in which he dropped the demand for Central Excise Duty made against M/s. Comet Telecom and their directors. Both these sets of appeal involve common facts and hence are being disposed through this common order. 3. M/s. Comet Telecom Pvt. Ltd. (Assessee) are engaged in the manufacture and supply of Railway Wagon and Bogie components falling under Chapter 72, 73 and 86 of the Central Excise, Tariff Act, 1985. They were enlisted as a manufacturer of such items and as a vendor for supply of such items to Railway Wagon and Bogie with the various zones of the Railway. 4. The assesses were also supplying various electrical components to State Electricity Boards including Rajasthan Bidhut Bitran Nigam. They were also registered as vendors with the different Electricity Boards for such supply. As per the requirements of Railways as well as Electricity Boards, they were required to emboss marks on their goods to identify the goods as supplied by them. 5. For supply of goods to Railway Wagon and Bogie manufactures, the practice adopted by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tral excise Duty on such goods. 8. On the above lines, separate Show Cause Notices were issued to the assessee. Covering the supplies made to Railways, the Show Cause Notice dated 22/05/2008, was issued in which, in addition to the demand for payment of Central Excise Duty amounting to Rs. 2,51,54,117/-, penalties were also imposed on the assessee as well as their directors. 9. In respect of supplies made to the Electricity Boards, Show Cause Notice dated 04/06/2008 was issued proposing demand of Central Excise Duty amounting to Rs. 50,93,726/- along with interest and penalties. 10. In respect of the Show Cause Notice dated 22/05/2008, the Adjudicating Authority passed the order-in-Original dated 22/12/2008, confirming the proposal for demand for duty and imposed penalties on the assesses as well as their directors. When the Order was challenged before the CESTAT, the same was set aside and the matter remanded for Denovo decision after granting an opportunity for cross examination of various job workers. After complying with direction of the Tribunal, the Adjudicating Authority passed the present impugned order dated 30/11/2012 in which the proceedings initiated in the Sho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at they were paid only labour charges and were supplied materials, out of which they have manufactured the goods and returned to the assessee. The job workers further admitted that the activity at the job worker's premises was not controlled by the assessee who only visited the job worker's premises for supervising the manufacturing process. On the basis of such record of cross examination, it was submitted that the Adjudicating Authority has rightly concluded that no liability for Central Excise Duty would arise on the assessee. Accordingly, they prayed that the Departmental appeal merits rejection; appeals filed by them be allowed and the impugned order in respect of Electricity Board should be set aside. 13. The Revenue's case is argued by Shri A. Roy, Ld. DR. He emphasized the following points. (i) He argued that the assessee is liable to be considered as the 'manufacturer' of the goods supplied both to Railway Wagon manufactures as well as Electricity Boards. He referred to the definition of the term 'manufacture' appearing in Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. This definition is: "manufacture includes any process incidental or ancillary to the completio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....16. The common thread of dispute in both set of appeals is whether the assessee is to be considered as the manufacturer of the goods supplied by them to Electricity Boards/Railway Wagon manufacturers. Admittedly, goods have been got manufactured by various job workers by payment of job charges and supply of raw materials. After receipt of goods from the job workers, the mandatory inspection by third party Agency has been carried out at the assessee's premises before supply of the goods to the customers. Further the assesses have represented themselves as manufacturer of the goods before their customers. In these circumstances, the question for decision is whether the assessees are liable to be considered as manufacturer and liable to payment of Excise Duty. 17. Revenue has justified the view that the assessee is the manufacturer with the argument that inspection is an important process without completion of which, the goods do not become marketable, since they cannot be supplied to the customers. The definition of the term "Manufacture" in section 2 (f) includes any process which is ancillary or incidental to the completion of the manufactured product. 18. The Apex Court in t....