TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 503X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e purpose of claiming exemption of this notification aggregate value of clearances of all excisable good for home consumption by the manufacturer from one or more factories or from a factory by one or more manufacturer does not exceed Rs. Four hundred Lakhs in the preceding financial years. For the purpose of calculating the aggregate value, the value of clearances bearing brand name or trade name of another person, which are ineligible for the brand of this exemption, are not to be included in the aggregate value. The notification further prescribed that where the specified goods manufactured by the manufacturer bear the brand name or trade name, whether registered or not, of another manufacturer or trader, such specified goods shall not, merely by reasons of the fact to be deemed to have been manufactured by such other manufacturer or trader. The appellant cannot be held to be manufacturer of goods and the job worker is the manufacturer in the facts of this case. The liability to pay duty arises at the end of the job worker and not at the end of the appellant although appellant is the supplier of the raw materials - in the facts of this case none of the provisions of notificat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d, it is apparent that allegation of department that the aggregate clearances should include the clearances made by M/s Orion Wire Manufacturing Company that is without any basis. Learned Counsel relied on the decision of tribunal in the case of ARIHANT UDHYOG-2018 (363) ELT 924 wherein, the tribunal held that duty liability would always arise on the end of job worker as job worker is manufacturer even when the work is done on job work basis. He argued that if the decision held that the person who gives the contract to the job worker for undertaking job work cannot be liable to pay duty even if SSI Exemption is not admissible. While holding so the tribunal in the case of THERMAX BABCOCK WILCOX- 2018 (364) ELT 945. Learned Counsel pointed out that similar observation has been made by the tribunal in the case of M/S HITACHI MANUFACTURING COMPANY-2017 (358) ELT 1136 and also in the case of M/S REDICURA PHARMACEUTICALS PVT. LTD-2015 326 ELT 379. Similar view has also been expressed by tribunal in the case of M/S SUPREME TANK PVT LTD and M/S PRIME INDUS. VALVES MANUFACTURING COMPANY reported in 2014 (314) ELT 725 and 2008 (221) ELT 255 respectively. Learned Counsel argued that in all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rker to the appellant. He argued that in this circumstances it is apparent that the appellant is the manufacturer he further argued that there are common employees between the appellant and the job worker and there are common partners as well. 3.1 Learned Departmental representative relied of the decision of the Hon ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of the M/S. LAMINA INTERNATIONAL- 2009 (239) ELT 232 he particular relied on Para 11 of the said decision which is reads as under: 11 . Considering the word manufacturer as defined under Section 2(f) of the Act, as it includes any person engages in their production or manufacture on his own account, we have to hold that the manufacturer M/s. Lamina Suspension Products Limited is manufacturing the goods on behalf of the M/s. Lamina International and the assessee is having a full control and supervision over the activities of M/s. Lamina Suspension Products Limited. Therefore, on facts we are of the opinion that the products manufactured by the M/s. Lamina Suspension Products Limited cannot be treated as product manufactured by a third person. Considering the definition cause of Section 2(f), we are of the opinion that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ces of all excisable goods for home consumption by a manufacturer from one or more factories, or from a factory by one or more manufacturers does not exceed (rupees four hundred lakhs) in the preceding financial year. The notification further prescribed as follows. 3A.For the purposes of determining the aggregate value of clearances of all excisable goods for home consumption , mentioned in clause (vii) of paragraph 2 of this notification ,the following clearances shall not be taken into account, namely :- (a).--------------------------------------------- (b) clearances bearing the brand name or trade name of another person, which are ineligible for the grant of this exemption in terms of paragraph 4, (c) ----------------------------------------------- The Notification also prescribed as follows:- (B) where the specified goods manufactured by a manufacturer bear a brand name or a trade name , whether registered or not, of another manufacturer or trader, such specified goods shall not , merely by reason of that fact, be deemed to have been manufactured by such other manufacturer or trader; 4.1 From the above it is apparent that the notification pre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o pay duty is transferred from the job work manufacturer to another person i.e. principal manufacturer. However when the principal manufacturer does not own up the liability to pay duty on finished goods, the provision of Notification No. 214/86-C.E., dated 25-3-1986 does not apply. In that case, it is the ultimate manufacturer i.e. the job worker who has to pay the duty. Following the procedure and conditions of the Notification (supra) only by the principal manufacturer, the job worker would be saved from payment of duty on goods manufactured by him. From the above it is apparent that the appellant cannot be held to be manufacturer of goods and the job worker is the manufacturer in the facts of this case. The liability to pay duty arises at the end of the job worker and not at the end of the appellant although appellant is the supplier of the raw materials. It is also clearly held in the case of THERMAX BABCOCK WILCOX LTD (Supra) that ownership of goods is immaterial for the purpose of fixing duty liability. Moreover, we also find that in the facts of this case none of the provisions of notification 8/2003-CE are attracted which can enable revenue to include the value of c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
