Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2005 (6) TMI 107

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y used during the period June, 1989 to February, 1994. This notice, inter alia, alleged that the job workers were only hired labour and the appellants were the real manufacturers of the lead anodes. The demand of duty was contested by the party on numerous grounds. The adjudicating authority passed Order-in-Original dated 31-3-1997 confirming the demand against the assessee and imposing a penalty on them. Against this order of the Commissioner, the appellants filed the captioned appeal and this Tribunal allowed it as per Final Order dated 10-5-99 holding that no manufacture was involved in the process of conversion of lead ingots into anodes. The department took the Tribunal's order in appeal to the Hon'ble Supreme Court [2004 (166) E.L.T. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....] affirmed by the Apex Court vide 1999 (111) E.L.T. A195. Ld. Counsel further submitted that the appellants could not be said to have manufactured the product by mere reason of the fact that the manufacture took place in their premises and it was out of the raw materials supplied by them. In this connection, reliance was placed on the following decisions of the Tribunal :- (i)       Tata Iron & Steel Company Ltd. v. CCE, 2003 (156) E.L.T. 681 (Tri. - Kol.) (ii)      CCE, Indore v. Gwalior Chemicals Ind. Ltd., 2004 (172) E.L.T. 186 (T) = 2004 (93) ECC 75 (Tri.) (iii)     SRF Ltd. v. CCE, Madras, 2001 (136) E.L.T. 210 (Tri. - Del.) 3. Ld. SDR pointed out th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eir own cost in the site provided by the appellants. The site was to be provided free of cost. Water and electricity were also to be supplied free of cost by the appellants. The Contractor was required to follow of the Rules and Regulations under the Factories Act and other Labour Laws in force, in engaging labour inside the appellants' factory. It was the Contractor's liability to get his labourers insured against injury, disability etc. which might be caused due to accident in the course of job work. Again, it was the responsibility of the Contractor to get registered for sale tax purposes under the A.P. Government Sale Tax Act. The work order also laid down a 'delivery schedule', which required that the Contractor should have the capacit....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tured on their behalf outside their factory by some house-hold ladies as cottage industry. The raw materials for such manufacture were supplied by the assessee. On these facts, it was held by the Apex Court that the house-hold ladies were the real manufacturers of agarbatti etc. Accordingly the value of goods manufactured by these ladies was held not includible in the aggregate value of clearances of the assessee. The ratio of this judgment of the Apex Court was followed by this Bench in the case of Motor Industries Company Ltd. (supra) wherein it was held that a hired labourer had no role to play except to receive his wages and that the inter-relationship of the parties to such a contract was that of employer and employee. The Tribunal's d....