RAUNAG INTERNATIONAL LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., LUCKNOW
LAWS(CE)-2015-8-19
CUSTOMS EXCISE AND GOLD(CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on August 14,2015

Raunag International Ltd. Appellant
VERSUS
Commissioner of C. Ex., Lucknow Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

AFL PVT. LTD. V/S. CCE,MUMBAI -II [REFERRED TO]
DIAMOND CEMENTS LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BHOPAL [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

ASHOK JINDAL,MEMBER (J) - (1.)The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order demanding duty along with interest and imposing penalty by the lower Authorities. The facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in a activity of undertakings Civil/Mechanical, turn -key projects at various sites of their customers. The appellant was awarded work order from M/s. National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC) for supply of Low Pressure Piping Package comprising of Design, Engineering, Packing and Forwarding and supply of Feroze Gandhi Unchahar TPP - Unchahar Stage -II. The appellant, further, sub -contracted the work for Pipeline Packages to M/s. Varshney Engineers & Erectors (in short VEE) through Minutes of Meeting dated 19 -8 -1996. As per the said, contract, M/s. VEE was required for transportation, fabrication, erection of piping works start to finish till its final acceptance by the appellant and NTPC. On the work executed by M/s. VEE, no duty has been paid therefore proceedings were initiated against the appellant to pay the duty on the work executed by the M/s. VEE being a Labour Contractor of the appellant as the appellant is required to pay duty on the said work. In these set of facts, the proceedings were initiated against the appellant for demanding duty along with interest and imposition of penalty and penalty on M/s. VEE. The show cause notice was adjudicated which converted into the impugned demands. Aggrieved from the said order, the appellant is before us.
(2.)The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant had sub -contracted certain work to M/s. VEE under an agreement and as per the terms of the agreement, M/s. VEE is the fabricator of those piping and are liable to pay duty thereof being a job worker/manufacturer of such said goods, therefore, the appellant is not liable to pay duty. He also contested the issue on the ground of limitation as well as on the ground that the goods fabricated M/s. VEE is not a pipe but it is only a Shell and not liable to pay duty thereof.
(3.)On the other hand, learned AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.