TMI Blog1986 (5) TMI 175X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned Counsel for the appellants argued that his main contention was that M/s. Shakti Udyog could not be regarded as the manufacturers of the steel utensils made by M/s. Mittal Steel Works, Vishwakarma Industries, Mittal Industries and Nishkam Udyog on their behalf, even though they sent stainless steel flats to them for the purpose. The manufacturer of the steel utensil is that person who makes the utensil from the raw material steel sheet or flat, and not the supplier of the steel sheet or even the owner of the utensil. It might be true, said the counsel, that they owned the steel sheets and utensils made from them; but they were not the manufacturers of the utensil. The other units who made the utensils for them were themselves independent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the Collector Central Excise, Chandigarh that there was no dispute that the utensils were manufactured by the 4 outside units. There was no dispute either that the manufacture was on behalf of M/s. Shakti Udyog and that the stainless steel sheets were sent by them and that the goods remained the property of M/s. Shakti Udyog at all times. The makers simply fabricated the utensils and charged the owners for the work. 6. In these conditions it is not permissible to adjudge the utensils as the manufactures of M/s. Shakti Udyog or as cleared on their behalf. The utensils were manufactured by the four independent units and they were the manufacturers of the utensils, even though M/s. Shakti Udyog were their owners. Ownership does not mak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case from the facts surrounding the transactions. Because of this, Shree agency was considered to be the manufacturer in terms of Section 2(f)(iv) of the Central Excises and Salt Act and hence the exemption was not available to them. Had the Notification No. 176/77-C.E. been similarly worded M/s. Shakti Udyog would also be disentitled. 9. But notification No 176/77-C.E. is not similarly worded: it gave exemption to goods falling in item 68 : cleared for home consumption on or after the first day of April in any financial year by or on behalf of a manufacturer from one or more factories .... It is not manufacture by or on behalf that is the exempting determinant, but clearance by or on behalf of . Manufacture is one thing, clearance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e total clearances of such outside unit - it cannot lift clearances from some unit to add to the total of another. We would like to emhasize again that there is nothing as clearance on behalf in the central excise law and in fact the phrase is meaningless. 12. To be sure, a man may camouflage his operations and conceal that he owns more than one factory. When it discovered that the other 2 or 3 factories are his, we will be tempted to say that their goods were cleared on his behalf. It is nothing of the kind. The goods were cleared by the owner, though he may have remained unknown before, and though to all appearances, somebody also cleared and removed the goods, it was the true owner who in reality cleared them. The goods were not clea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
