TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 78X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the assessee company were independent contractors/manufacturers and hence, the assessee company and/or its directors cannot be saddled with any liability of payment of excise duty and/or consequential penalty with respect to the goods so manufactured by the said job workers. Appeal allowed. - Excise Appeal Nos. 199-201 of 2009 with Excise Appeal Nos. 70151 of 2013, CO-70979 of 2013, E/70165-70166 of 2013 - FINAL ORDER Nos. 75260-75265/2023 - Dated:- 28-4-2023 - MR. P. K. CHOUDHURY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MR. K. ANPAZHAKAN MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri Arijit Chakraborty, Advocate for the Appellant Shri S. Mukhopadhyay, Authorized Representative for the Respondent ORDER That this Tribunal vide Final order No. F/7709 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... impugned order of the Tribunal dated 5th December, 2018 and direct it to rehear and re-determine the issue upon hearing the parties and by passing a reasoned order, preferably within four months of communication of this order. 3. The issue here is very short. The assessee sent materials to diverse job workers for manufacture of the final product. Only inspection of the finished goods was carried out at the premises of the assessee. If the job workers are proved to be the agents of the assessee who work under their supervision and control, then the assessee is the real manufacturer and not the job workers. Excise duty is payable by the assessee. On the other hand, if the job workers are proved to be independent contractors with little ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pondents are not the manufacturers of agarbati, amlapodi, dhup et. Manufactured by various cottage type manufacturers on job work basis. On the facts narrated above, we do not think that the assumption of the Collector that the respondents got the goods in question manufactured by hired labourers can be sustained. On the other hand we find, on the facts, the house-hold ladies are the manufacturers of the goods in question and the liability to excise duty will be attracted on their manufacture of the goods and therefore, it cannot be clubbed with the goods manufactured in the factory premises of the respondents to deny the exemption claimed. 4. That as such, the scope of remand before this Tribunal is for determination of the fact as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ittle or no supervision by the assessee company herein. To be specific, the Ld. Commissioner has held at Para 9.14 that such checks do not in any way imply that the whole manufacturing processes being undertaken at the job workers premises were controlled and supervised by the said Noticee No. 1 . 7. That the Ld. Commissioner has rightly relied upon the following decisions in this regard:- (i) Ginne Steels Private Limited Vs. CCE [2005 (183) ELT 142] (ii) ORG System Vs. CCE [1998 (102) ELT 3 (S.C.)] (iii) Kerala State Electricity Board Vs. CCE [1990 (47) ELT 62] r/w [1992 (62) ELT A 52 (S.C.)]. 8. That it is held in the Order dated 03.02.2020, referred supra, passed by the Hon ble High Court, Calcutta in CEXA No. 57 of 2019 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
