Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu
Collector Of C. Ex. vs Tamil Nadu Electricity Board on 22 December, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2001(134)ELT91(TRI-CHENNAI)
ORDER S.L. Peeran, Member (J)
1. These Revenue appeals are against Orders-in-Appeal No. 3/95, dated 8-2-1995 and OIA No. 13 to 15/95, dated 13-2-1995 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) dropping the proceedings for recovery of duty on PSC pools on the ground that respondent is not the manufacturer as respondent had awarded the contract to independent contractors who were the real manufacturers. He has noted the Apex Court judgment rendered in the case of KSEB reported in 1990 (47) E.L.T. A161 by which the Tribunal's final order, dated 1-2-1988 was upheld rejecting appeal preferred by Revenue.
2. Ld. SDR, Shri G. Sreekumar Menon appearing for Revenue submits that respondent is the real manufacturer and also establishment and contingency charges should be included in the assessable value. He submits that a different view be taken on re-appreciation of facts although he does concede that Tribunal in all similar matters of KSEB has decided the appeal in favour of assessee and also dismissed Revenue appeal in terms of one such Final Order Nos. 1660 to 1664, dated 21-8-1998 which has noted all previous orders and confirmed the view as expressed by the Commissioner (Appeals).
3. Ld. Counsel Shri Dhanasekaran appearing for respondents submits that Revenue has no case in the matter and submits that the issue is fully covered in terms of Final Order Nos. 1660 to 1664/98, dated 21-8-1998 wherein the Tribunal already examined the contract and has clearly concluded that the relationship between the KSEB and the contractor was on principal to principal basis and the contract was a job worker as the Tribunal clearly upheld their submissions that duty ought to have been deposited against the contractor who were the independent manufacturers. Therefore, he submits that facts and circumstances being same in the present case and the same having been verified by the Commissioner (Appeals) and concluded that respondent is not the manufacturer, therefore in terms of citations appeals are required to be rejected.
4. On careful consideration, and on perusal of the record, we are satisfied that Commissioner has verified the facts and has clearly concluded that the contractor is the real manufacturer in terms of the contract executed by them with TNEB. The facts are not disputed in the appeal memo and therefore Tribunal's final Order Nos. 1660 to 1664/98, dated 21-8-1998 would apply to the facts of this case as in that case the Tribunal has examined the contract and concluded that the relationship between the TNEB and the contractors was on principal to principal basis and the real manufacturer was the contractor.
5. In that view of the matter, there is no infirmity in the impugned order and hence respectfully following the ratio of the earlier judgments noted above, the Revenue appeals are rejected.