H.R. Syiem, Member (T)

1. This appeal came before the bench on 18.4.1986. It was found that there was some unclarity about the proper transfer of the revision petition from the Government of India to this Tribunal. The Registry reported that the matter had indeed been regularly transferred. The appeal was then heard on 14.5.1986.

2. The learned Counsel for the appellants argued that his main contention was that M/s. Shakti Udyog could not be regarded as the manufacturers of the steel utensils made by M/s. Mittal Steel Works, Vishwakarma Industries, Mittal Industries and Nishkam Udyog on their behalf, even though they sent stainless steel flats to them for the purpose. The manufacturer of the steel utensil is that person who makes the utensil from the raw material steel sheet or flat, and not the supplier of the steel sheet or even the owner of the utensil. It might be true, said the counsel, that they owned the steel sheets and utensils made from them; but they were not the manufacturers of the utensil. The other units who made the utensils for them were themselves independent units who manufacture goods not only for them but also for any one who placed orders with them. The Col