9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (12) TMI 3X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of Central Excise whereby the Central Excise duty of Rs. 43, 71,452/- was confirmed and penalty of Rs. 4, 50,000/- was imposed on the ground that appellants had carried out fabricatiod and assembling work of eight identifiable items namely seed cleaner, cracker; flaker toaster, extruder, elevators water treatment Plant and tanks. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The contention of the appellant is that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ral Excise, Jamshedpur, reported in 2001 (133) E.L.T. 350 (Tri- Del.) 2. Dempo Engg. Services v. Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Goa, reported in 2001 (44) RLT 105 (CEGAT-Mum.) 3. SRF Limited v. Collector of Central Excise, Madras, reported in 2001 (136) E.L.T. 210 (Tri.) = 2001 (46) RLT 153 (CEGAT-Del.). 4. The contention of the appellant is that in above decisions the Tribunal held tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e is that the appellants arranged the labour and other utility iike electricity etc. for carrying out fabrication assembly at their sight. Therefore, the appellants are manufacturer of the goods in question. 7. We find that in this case that appellants took a specific stand before adjudicating authority that M/s. Oilex Engineers (I) Pvt. Ltd. is the manufacturer of the goods. We had perused the t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. The Tribunal in the case of Dempo Engg. Services v. Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Goa, (Supra) taken the same view. The Tribunal held that in case the goods were fabricated by a sub-contractor, the sub-contractor is a manufacturer and liable to pay duty. The similar view was taken in the case of SRF Limited v. Collector of Central Excise, Madras (Supra). 8. In the present case, we fin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
