TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2001 (7) TMI 194
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rporation Ltd. (in short, ACCO); that the work order for such fabrication and erection was placed on ACCO in April, 1990; that, under the contract, ACCO purchased the materials and supplied the same to the appellants and the latter re-issued the materials to the former for the purpose of the fabrication work within the latter's premises; that ACCO undertook the contracted work by employing their own sub-contractors, machinery, labour, etc., in the appellants' premises; that, on completion of the entire work, payment was made by the appellants to ACCO; that, on 24-7-1992, the Department issued a show cause notice (SCN) to the appellants invoking the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excises and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or's order, the appellants have reiterated all the above arguments. 3.Heard both sides. Ld. Advocate, Shri V. Sridharan, for the appellants did not press the issue as to whether the activity of fabrication of the aluminium ductings and air grills amounted to manufacture or not. His focus was on the appellants' plea that they were not the manufacturer of the items in question and hence not liable to pay any duty of excise on the same. Ld. Counsel submitted that it was ACCO who actually undertook the fabrication work in the appellants' premises. The materials required for the work were also supplied by ACCO. The work was undertaken on the drawings/design supplied by them. ACCO used their own technical know-how and machinery and employed th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion in Agauta Sugar & Chemicals v. CCE, Meerut [2001 (138) E.L.T. 378 (Tribunal) = 2001 (43) RLT 779]. 4.Ld. DR, Shri M.P. Singh, submitted that it was the appellants who issued the raw materials for the fabrication work to ACCO and got the work done in their own premises by the hired labourers of ACCO. He sought to lay stress on the facts that the appellants had paid 80% of the cost of raw materials; that the materials were issued by them to ACCO on the latter's requisition and that the drawings supplied by ACCO were required to be approved by the appellants. ACCO were only agents or servants of the appellants. Ld. DR, therefore, argued that the appellants were to be treated as the actual manufacturers of the fabricated system and hence....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uctings and air grilIs. 6.The mere fact that raw materials, originally supplied by ACCO, were stored by the appellants in their premises and issued by them on the contractor's requisition would neither make the appellants material suppliers nor suffice to treat M/s. ACCO as hired labourers of the appellants. The decision of this Tribunal in the case of Binny Limited (supra) supports the appellants' case on the point. In that case, this Tribunal held that mere supply of raw materials to job workers did not make them hired labourers when they were having their own independent unit. The Bench further observed: "To constitute hired labour, relationship of Master and Servant between those Hired and Hiring is a must, which implies active contr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., held that they were liable to pay duty of excise as demanded by the Department. This decision also supports the appellants' case. 8.In the case of Tannery & Footwear Corpn. (supra) cited by ld. DR, the question had arisen before the Apex Court as to who was the manufacturer of the goods, but the court remanded the matter to the Tribunal without giving any decision on the question. Hence we have not come across any case law on the point in Tannery & Footwear Corpn. (supra), to be followed in the present case. In Bharat Seats (supra), the question did arise as to whether the job workers viz. Sreeja Engineering Works were manufacturers or only hired labourers of the appellants. The Tribunal held the appellants to be the manufacturers and ....