Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AAR Central Excise - 2003 (12) TMI AAR This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2003 (12) TMI 87 - AAR - Central ExciseManufacturer - Job Work - Brand Name - The draft job work agreement between the Joint Venture company (applicant) and Metropolitan Trading Company envisages that the latter will undertake manufacture of readymade garments and clothing accessories on a job work basis, including washing, ironing etc., at the rates and other terms to be mutually agreed upon between them. The Joint Venture company will supply the raw materials for such manufacture - Held that:- the applicant cannot claim to be a manufacturer for some purposes and a non-manufacturer for other purposes. - The argument of the applicant that the introduction of clause 5(I) in the notification No. 8/2002-CE, dated 1.3.2002 is to overcome the difficulty of following a non-manufacturer to claim the benefit of SSI exemption notification (which benefit such a non-manufacturer would not otherwise be able to claim) is fallacious. The objective of clause 5(I) is only to clarify, beyond doubt, that for the purpose of the SSI notification (and not merely for purposes of payment of duty) the expression "manufacturer" would include the person made liable for payment of duty in respect of excisable goods falling under Chapter 61 & 62 of CET and manufactured on job work basis - a person cannot be deemed not to be a manufacturer of goods (though liable to pay duty) and yet be a manufacturer (of the same goods) for availing the benefit of SSI exemption.
|