TMI Blog2012 (6) TMI 73X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cannot be made a ground for holding that it is the appellants who had fabricated the goods when the contractors have admitted having fabricated the goods for and on behalf of the appellants. If that be so, the appellant cannot be held as a manufacturer. There is nothing in the Revenue's case to show that the said goods were manufactured by them for clearance from the factory. On the contrary, statements of contractors revealed that the goods were meant for use in the factory itself. Accordingly, applicants are entitled to the benefit of Notification No.281/86 dtd. 24.04.86 and Notification No.217/86, dtd. 02.04.86 It is well settled law that when during the relevant period, the decisions of higher appellate forum were in favour of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Larger Bench in the case of Mahindra Mahindra Ltd. reported in 2005(190)ELT301. However, it is the appellants contention that the said goods were being fabricated by the contractors and in such a scenario, it is the contractor who has to be held as manufacturer. For the proposition that it is the job worker who actually manufactured the goods who has to be held as manufacturer, the appellants have relied upon the Hon ble Supreme Court s decision in the case of MM Khambatwala reported in 1996(84)ELT161(SC) as also on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Indian Oil Corporation reported in 2010(253)ELT324(Tri.). In the alternative, the benefit of Notification No.61/90-CE and 281/86-CE, and 217/86-CE are claimed. The demand als ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facture of steel items through contractors. In as much as it is the appellants who have been supplying the raw material, the contractors were only dummy and can be called as a mere fagade. He has further observed that if a hired labour is employed, in that case instead of hired labour, it is the employer who is the manufacturer. 5. We do not find favour with the above reasoning of the lower authority. Merely because the appellants were supplying the raw material and was exercising supervisory quality control over the goods, it cannot be held that the contractors were actually hired labourers especially when the contractors have admitted having fabricated the goods for and on behalf of the appellants. Similarly merely because the said fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eir machines. There is nothing in the Revenue s case to show that the said goods were manufactured by them for clearance from the factory. On the contrary, the evidence in the shape of statements of contractors revealed that the goods were meant for use in the factory itself. As such we are of the view that the benefit of Notification No.281/86 is available to the appellants. 7. In any case, Notification No.217/86, dtd. 02.04.86 which grants exemption to the goods manufactured in the factory and used in the factory, is also available to the appellants. The denial of the same on the ground that the said Notification excludes machines, machineries, plants, equipments, appliances does not hold good in as much as the items in questions are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
