9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (12) TMI 266X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said two firms as they would be entitled to exemption under Notification Nos. 71/78 and 80/80 during the relevant periods. Notice dated 25-11-1981 was issued to all three firms on the basis that the manufacturer of the metal containers shall be M/s. Travancore Cochin Chemicals Limited and duty was, therefore, payable by them as they were not entitled to exemption. After adjudication the Assistant Collector held that M/s. Travancore Cochin Chemicals Limited were the manufacturers of the metal drums and duty was therefore payable by them. On appeal the Order was set aside by the Appellate Collector under Order dated 12-7-1982. He held that it was only M/s. Cochin Metal Industries and Kejariwal Industries that were the manufacturers of the met ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ondents but also to others. He held that the present was "not a case of the two units remaining superficial or in disguise for the sake of appellants", the appellants in the said quotation referring to the present respondents. 5. Smt. Dolly Saxena relied on a decision of this Tribunal in this case of M/s. Britania Biscuits Company Limited (Order No. 204-207/84-D, dated 19-4-1984). She contended that in that case also the appellants had supplied raw materials to certain other firms which fabricated metal containers out of the same to the specifications of the appellants and returned the goods and that the Tribunal had held that the appellants were the manufacturers of the metal containers. But we note that this decision had been consid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct of the rolled products but only the person who did the actual re-rolling. This question was again considered by the Tribunal in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Madras v. M/s. Modo Plast (Pvt.) Ltd. (1985 Vol. 21E.L.T. 187). The Bench referred to the .decision of the Allahabad High Court cited supra and also referred to two more decisions, one of this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Lucas India Services Limited (1984 Vol. 16 E.L.T.415) and another decision of .the Allahabad High Court.in the case of Philips India Limited [1980 (6) E.L.T. 263]). It was pointed out that though M/s. Praga Industries supplied raw materials to M/s Modo Plast for conversion into urea moulding power and after such conversion the material was supplied by M/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ms on the orders of the respondents. The second of the said reasons would not mean that the said two firms were acting entirely on behalf of the respondents or as their agents. So long as the contract regarding conversion out of raw material had been entered into on a principal to principal basis, the persons doing the conversion work could not be said to be dummies on behalf of the supplier of the raw material.
7. We, therefore, hold that the Appellate Collector was correct in his conclusion that the respondents were not the manufacturers for purposes of levy of excise duty though the containers have been manufactured out of raw material supplied by the respondents. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
