Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Gujarat Electricity Board vs Collector Of C. Ex. on 13 February, 1997
Equivalent citations: 1997(93)ELT418(TRI-DEL)
ORDER S.L. Peeran, Member (J)
1. This appeal arises from the order in original dated 29-1-1988 passed by Collector of Central Excise confirming the duty amount as noted in the order-in-original. Collector (Appeals) has held that no penalty can be imposed on the appellants. The issues in this appeal pertaining to manufacture cement concrete poles has been decided against the assesee. It is the contention of the appellants that the goods were manufactured by independent contractors and therefore duty cannot be confirmed against the appellants. In this regard it is submitted that this issue has come up for consideration before the Tribunal as well as before the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court time and again and their contention has been accepted. The following cases are cited in their support.
1. 1996 (81) E.L.T. 284 (Tribunal) - C.C.E. v. Gujarat Electricity Board
2. Order No. 2255/96-D, dated 29-3-1996 - C.C.E. v. Gujarat Electricity Board
3. Order No. 226/96-D, dated 29-3-1996 - C.C.E. v. Gujarat Electricity Board
4. Order passed by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in S.C.A. No. 2501/85, dated 4-11-1991.
2. The Ld. DR reiterates the departmental arguments.
3. We have considered the submissions and perused the judgment and also perused the records. In the present case it is an admitted fact the goods were manufactured by independent contractors and the relationship between them is that of [principle to principle] basis. On this ground, Collector (Appeals) as well as Collector in the appellant's own proceedings in some cases have dropped proceedings as per the copy of the order produced and placed in the file. In some other cases which were challenged before the Tribunal, it has been held that the contractors were independent manufacturers and they were manufacturing on the basis of [principle to principle] basis. In view of this Tribunal's order and Gujarat High Court's judgment, the manufacturer of the poles being the contractor, we uphold the appellant's contention and order that the demand raised be set aside. The confirmation of penalty is also set aside in terms of the judgment cited. Thus the appeal is allowed.