GKC PROJECTS LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant M/s. GKC Projects Ltd. and M/s. SEW Infrastructure Ltd. have preferred these appeals against Orders -in -Original No. 14 -15/2011/C, dated 25 -11 -2011 and Nos. 65 -66/2012/C, dated 8 -11 -2012 respectively passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Nagpur. The brief facts are that M/s. GKC Projects Limited, are engaged in the manufacture of MS Pipes falling under Chapter Heading 73 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellants are manufacturing MS Pipes and undertaking the process of guniting i.e. outer coating of the MS Pipes with wiremesh and cement -sand mix in various places across India and supplying coated MS Pipes to various water supply projects. The appellants are also availing exemption under Sl. No. 7 of the Notification No. on obtaining a certificate from District Magistrate. Details of some of the projects where the appellants are availing/availed exemption under the above notification are as follows:

(2.) THE appellant further argues that the Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in holding that the appellants are actually undertaking the process of manufacture. Thus, there is no ambiguity about considering the appellant as manufacturer of excisable goods i.e. MS Pipes, as the appellants have all the infrastructure such as machinery, labour, water and electricity, etc., whereas in fact that appellants submit that they are only job workers of the principal manufacturer M/s. China Railway Shisigu Group Corporation Ltd. (CRSGC) in Joint Venture with M/s. SEW Infrastructure Ltd. The premises required for set up of the manufacturing facility as provided by the said Joint Venture. The principal raw materials being MS sheets are also provided by the said Joint Venture. The appellants undertake manufacturing activity with their machinery, labour, consumables, etc., and guniting the same and the clearance of the pipes from the manufacturing site to the site, where the pipes are required was undertaken by the said Joint Venture. Therefore, for a practical purpose, the appellants are only acting as job worker and duty liability, if any, is only on the principal manufacturer (Joint Venture) and not on the appellants. Thus, the decisions relied on by the Commissioner in the impugned order are misplaced. The Commissioner has further erred that as the appellants have not got themselves registered with the Sales Tax/Excise authorities in spite of stipulation in the work order, the plea of the appellant was found to be frivolous that they had not get themselves registered as it was not chargeable to tax under the respective Acts.