Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2009 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2009 (4) TMI 169 - CESTAT, CHENNAIWho is manufacturer - It appeared to the department that the appellants were manufacturers of the blended yarn and that the various spinners residing in the village areas notified by the KVIC were hired labourers of the appellants. It is on this basis that a show-cause notice was issued to the appellants in November, 2001 demanding duty of Rs. 35,82,375/-, applying the extended period of limitation, on yarn cleared without payment of duty during the period December, 1996 to September, 2001. – held that - In the present case, there is no material on record to arrive at the conclusion that the appellants supervised the individual spinners. The appellant’s contention that they did not supervise and could not supervise the production by individual spinners, is also borne by the fact that the spinners are located in different villages and it is, therefore, not possible for the appellants to exercise any control or supervision over the production of yarn by the spinners. – demand set aisde.
|