TMI Blog2007 (7) TMI 75X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s in E/657/2004, for the period August 96 to May 1998 in adjudication of show-cause notice dated 31-8-2001, penalty of equal amount was imposed on the said company under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act and penalties were imposed under Rule 209 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 on S/Shri Rajeev Tandon, Director of GDOL (appellant in E/660/2004), Vijaya Mathur, Director of M/s. Braun India (P) Ltd. (appellant in E/658/2004) and Ranjit Pratap, Director of Rialto Enterprises (P) Ltd. (appellant in E/659/2004). Under agreements entered into between M/s. GDOL and M/s. Rialto Enterprises (F) Ltd. IREPL, for short], the latter had manufactured a variety of excisable goods out of raw materials procured by themselves with the concurrence of M/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and M/s. GDOL are separate and independent companies with separate juristic personality. M/s. REPL manufactured the goods and supplied the same to M/s. GDOL on payment of duty of excise under statutory invoices. They also filed returns from time to time. The show-cause notice did not raise any objection with regard to these returns. The manufacture of the goods by M/s. REPL was out of raw materials procured by themselves. The capital goods used for the purpose was lawfully acquired by them under a lease agreement with M/s. BIPL. These facts are not in dispute. It appears from the impugned order that learned Commissioner found a 'master-hired labour' relation between M/s. GDOL and M/s. REPL, in one part of his order. In another part of his ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ods, the entire duty on the goods should have been demanded from them. It is a matter of record that M/s. REPL filed RT-12 returns periodically and that there has never been an objection raised in respect thereof by the Revenue. It is also on record that the payment of duty by M/s. REPL was in terms of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's ruling in the case of Ujagar Prints v. Union of India - 1988 (38) E.L.T. 535 (S.C.) as clarified in Ujagar Prints v. Union of India - 1989 (39) E.L.T. 493 (S.C.). By accepting the assessments done by M/s. REPL, the Revenue was virtually recognizing them as a job worker in terms of Ujagar Prints (supra). If that be so, there is no question of dubbing them as shadow or dummy of anybody. Learned counsel has cite ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt entered between them. The transaction was a normal commercial transaction and was not in the nature of job work insofar as M/s. REPL were concerned. We have found a valid point for M/s. GDOL. They did not supply any raw material or capital goods to M/s. REPL for the manufacture of the subject goods, nor did they provide work force for the purpose. Deputation of supervisors by them to the factory of M/s. REPL did not make any dent in the commercial nature of the transaction between the companies. M/s. GDOL had nothing to do with the lease arrangement between M/s. REPL and M/s. BIPL in respect of the capital goods. It was lawful for M/s. REPL to hire capital goods and use it for manufacturing excisable goods. That was precisely what they d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
