TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 956X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... own machinery and appliances and their own workers, the job had been done in the appellant’s premises and under the appellant’s supervision. It is seen that in terms of the appellant’s contract with their job workers, the job workers were to pay the minimum wages to the skilled and unskilled labourers as per the Government’s orders and were to comply with the Government’s regulations in this regard. In case of injury to any worker in any accident, it is the job workers, who would be liable to pay compensation to the worker and if any compensation is paid by the appellant, the same would be recoverable from the job workers. In terms of the conditions of the contract, the job workers were to ensure the safety of the labour employed by them a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onfirmed the duty demand of ₹ 33,30,432/- against the appellant for the period 1-3-1986 to 30-4-1988. Appeal No. E/2648 and 2649/2007-EX are against the order-in-appeal No. 448-449(HKJ) C.E./JPR-II, dated 16-7-2007 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) by which he has upheld the duty demands of ₹ 6,89,868/- for the period from 1-7-1990 to 30-11-1990 and duty demand of ₹ 9,24,630/- for the period from March, 1993 to June, 1993 and May, 1994 with penalty of ₹ 2 lakh on the appellant. The facts leading to filing of these appeals are, in brief, as under :- 1.1 The appellant are manufacturers of zinc, lead and other non-ferrous metals manufactured by electrolysis process by using the Aluminium Cathodes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court remanded the matter to the Tribunal to decide the question as to who is the manufacturer. 1.2 The Tribunal vide Final Order No. 17-18/05-B, dated 17-12-2004 remanded the matter to the original adjudicating authority for deciding the above question. The original adjudicating authority vide Order-in-Original, dated 29-9-2005 confirmed the duty demands of ₹ 2,66,03,536/- for the period from 1-5-1988 to 28-2-1995 and imposed penalty of ₹ 25,000,00/- under Rule 173Q(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. By another order, dated 29-9-2005, the Commissioner confirmed the duty demand of ₹ 33,30,432/- for the period from 1-3-1986 to 30-4-1988. The Adjudicating Authority in these orders held that it is the appellant, who has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... workers were on principal to principal basis, that the job workers had brought their own machinery and equipments and had employed their own labourers, that just because the job workers had fabricated electrodes out of the raw materials supplied by the appellant and as per designs given by the appellant and under their supervision, the job workers cannot be treated as hired labour of the appellant, that the findings of the Commissioner and the Commissioner (Appeals) that the job workers engaged by the appellant were hired labourers is incorrect, that identical contracts had been entered into by the appellant s unit at Visakhapattanam with some job workers for fabrication of lead and zinc electrodes on job work basis and in respect of those ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and appliances and their own workers, the job had been done in the appellant s premises and under the appellant s supervision. It is seen that in terms of the appellant s contract with their job workers, the job workers were to pay the minimum wages to the skilled and unskilled labourers as per the Government s orders and were to comply with the Government s regulations in this regard. In case of injury to any worker in any accident, it is the job workers, who would be liable to pay compensation to the worker and if any compensation is paid by the appellant, the same would be recoverable from the job workers. In terms of the conditions of the contract, the job workers were to ensure the safety of the labour employed by them as provided unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
