TMI Blog2008 (5) TMI 290X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed from 10-5-1995, had, through a scheme of arrangement with the approval of the High Court of Delhi, transferred its compressor business, along with its all assets, to Siel Compressors Limited. Later its name was changed to M/s Tecumseh Products India Limited i.e. The respondent SIL was undertaking repairs to damaged and defective compressors at its service centre, which is separate from the main factory but adjacent thereto. On the ground that SIL was manufacturing stators, Central Excise officials issued show cause notice dated 17-1-1991 demanding excise duty from 1-1-1987 to 31-7-1990 and another notice dated 25-3-1991 demanding duty for the period 1-8-1990 to April 1992 to SIL. After replies were sent to those show cause notices by SIL, the Collector, Central Excise, through his order dated 25-11-1991, dropped further proceedings on the said show cause notices dated 17-1-1991 and 25-3-1991 holding that stators received by SIL from the job workers had all the essential characteristics of fully manufactured goods and that no new product emerged from the service centre of SIL. Questioning the said order of the Commissioner, the Excise Department preferred an appeal to the Appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndent and set aside the demands made by the Excise officials. Hence these appeals by the Revenue. 3. At the time of hearing of these appeals, the learned counsel for the respondent took a preliminary objection relating to the maintainability of the appeals in this Court. By relying on Section 35G(1) and Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (the Act) he contended that the appeals against the orders impugned in these appeals can lie only to the Supreme Court but not to this Court, and even otherwise also as no question of law much less substantial question of law arises for consideration in these appeals, and as the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal on the basis of the material on record cannot be interfered with or disturbed by this court as held in O.R.G. Systems v. Collector of Central Excise, Vadodara - 1998 (102) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) and Rallis India Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu - 1999 (114) E.L.T. 5 (S.C.) these appeals are liable to be dismissed as not maintainable in this Court. He also relied on Navin Chemicals Manufacturing Trading Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs - 1993 (68) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.), Sterlite Optical Technologies Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by them earlier, for the extra work entrusted to the job workers. After discussing the rival contentions and basing on the material available on record CESTAT came to a conclusion that it is the job workers but not the appellant that manufactured the stators. 6. The purchase orders, enclosed to the replies to the show cause notices, show that the job workers have to do winding of outer lamination bundles to specified sizes to form finished stator wounds and also have to do the varnishing and baking of the finished stators, from out of the Copper wire, outer lamination bundles, cable assembly, insulation material polyester thread supplied to them by the predecessors in interest of the respondent and that it is for the job workers to procure Oxygen gas, Acetylene Gas, Welding rods. The Annexures appended to the purchase orders contain the following note : "The contract is on a principal basis. There is no financial relationship between the company and the job worker what so ever. The company has no interest in the business/manufacturing activity of the job worker except to the extent of the present job work given under this order. The job worker is at liberty to carry on any man ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act. 9. The meaning of the expression "determination of the rate of duty of the excise or value of the goods for the purpose of assessment of any duty" used in Sections 35G and 35L of the Act is not found in any other sections of the Act except in the explanation to Section 35E of the Act, which reads : Explanation :- For the purposes of this sub-section, the determination of a rate of duty in relation to any goods or valuation of any goods for the purposes of assessment of duty includes the determination of a question - (a) relating to the rate of duty of excise for the time being in force, whether under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986), or under any other Central Act providing for the levy and collection of any duty of excise, in relation to any goods on or after the 28th day of February, 1986; or (b) relating to the value of goods for the purposes of assessment of any duty of excise in cases where the assessment is made on or after the 28th day of February 1986; or (c) Whether any goods are excisable goods or whether the rate of duty of excise on any goods is nil; or (d) Whether any goods fall under a particular heading or s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
