TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (9) TMI 114
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns, 30 KV pins, stay sets etc.). Prior to this, the appellant would get the goods manufactured on job work basis as the factory was not capable of supplying different MS hardware to the state electricity boards. The appellants have filed appeal against the order-in-original No. 18/Commissioner/CE/Haldia/Adjn/2012 dated 27.03.2012, whereby the learned Commissioner has confirmed a duty amount of over Rs.1.25 crore besides holding the appellants liable to interest and penalty in terms of section 11AB and 11AC of the Central Excise Act [The Act] respectively. The order also imposes personal penalty on the proprietor in terms of Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 [The Rules]. 2. It is submitted by the appellant that they were purchasing insu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the goods supplied to the Nigams was also conducted at the job-worker's premises. The Director of the firm, Shri G.D. Mundra in his statements had stated that they may have received the Orders from the Vidyut Nigams as a manufacturer, but they did not actually manufacture the goods. The appellant however manufactured small quantities of goods, in their factory for some other parties namely M/s. Indian Potteries Ltd. and M/s Allied Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. Further, during the period 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08, their clearance value did not exceed SSI exemption limit and for that reason the appellant had not taken Central Excise registration and were not required to pay the Central Excise duty. They further submitted that the job-workers were....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....09.2010. The appellants state that as the search was undertaken in the month of May and June 2007 and all sales records and other documents retrieved, the facts were well within the knowledge of the department. They further state that during the period 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08 the clearances of the manufactured goods were well below the exemption threshold and therefore they were not required to take any registration for purchase and sale of the goods supplied to the electricity boards. For the reason no intimation to the department was also statutorily required to be tendered. Therefore they submit that they were not the manufacturers of the goods and were procuring the same from the job workers and supplying to different Vidyut Vitra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 795 affirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court -2010 (254) ELT A-37.] * Basant Industries v. Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur [1995 (75) ELT 21 (S.C.)] * Collector of Central Excise, Baroda v. M.M. Khambhatwala [1996 (84) ELT 161 (S.C.)] * CCE v. Aurofood Pvt.Ltd. [1989 (44) ELT 261 (Tribunal) upheld by Hon'ble Apex Court - 1997 (94) ELT A 140 (S.C.)] * Collector of C.Ex v. Arihant Udyog v. CCE, Nasik [2018 (363) ELT 924 (Tri.-Mumbai)] Thus in view of the law as flowing from the said cases we are of the view that a trader can under no circumstances be held to be a manufacturer and entrusted with attendant liabilities. 9. This bench of the Tribunal in the case of Commet Technocom Private Limited [Final Order No.FO/77097-77102/2018 dated....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hase basis or getting the same through job work from small manufacturers and in turn supplied them to the Electricity Board as if the said goods were manufactured by the appellant. The department has arrived at the conclusion that the appellant is the manufacturer because they have claimed to be so while accepting the bid and tender supplied by the Electricity Boards. In response to a query from the Bench, the appellant submits that claim of being a manufacturer, was a mandatory requirement for participation in the tender bids. From the records, there is no other evidence culled out by the department to suggest that the appellant were in effect manufacturers of such electrical items and the same was produced by them in the factory. Admitted....