Back
CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND GOLD (CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
S.L. PEERAN, Shiben K. Dhar, JJ.
Collector of Central Excise, Bombay -Appellant
Versus
Timo Plast -Respondent
Final Order No. E/269/98-B1 Appeal No. E/4591/89-B1, 269 of 1998, 4591 of 1989
Decided On : 30-12-1997
D.S. Negi,R. Sudhinder
Per S.L. Peeran :
This is a Revenue Appeal against the Order passed by Collector (Appeals), Bombay, holding that the appellants are entitled to exemption under Notification 175/86 dated 1.3.86. In this regard, the Collector (Appeals) has relied upon several judgements to hold that the supply of raw material cannot be treated as manufacture and their clearances cannot be cleared with the clearances of the assessee to deny the benefit of this Notification. He has also noted the fact that the assessee is an independent manufacturer and that there are no other facts for clubbing their clearances. In this appeal memo, the Revenue has not brought forthwith any facts to show that clearances of both the units, that is, that of P.K. Electronics Ltd.; supplier of raw material and that of the assessee could be clubbed other than stating that the clearances of the supplier of raw material is required to be clubbed with the assessee manufacturer while supplying the goods on the basis of the specifications furnished by the supplier of raw material, that is, M/s. P.K. Electronics Ltd.
2. We have heard both sides in this matter and we consider that there is no merit in this appeal in view of the detailed discussions by the Collector (Appeals) in the light of the evidence and the case law. Revenue has not placed any evidence to state that assessee is a dummy unit of the supplier of raw material or that there is a financial flow back with the supplier of raw material. We also noticed that the issue in the present appeal falls squarely within the ambit of the ratio of the Supreme Court judgement rendered in the case of Basant Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur - 1995 (75) ELT 21 - wherein the Apex Court has held that the clearances of the supplier cannot be clubbed with that of an independent job worker.
3. In that view of the matter, respectfully following the ratio of the Supreme Court judgement, we hold that there is no merit in this appeal and reject the same by confirming the impugned order.
