Full Judgment
3. The Respondents are engaged in the manufacture and export of readymade garments. As they were in requirement of furniture for their office and factory premises, they engaged M/s. Shilpa Interiors, 5, Apollo Estate, Mogra Pada, Andheri (East), Mumbai, to manufacture furniture on job work basis. The material for the work was supplied by the Respondents. The Department treated the Respondents to be the manufacturer under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and issued Show Cause Notice dated 31.05.2005 demanding central excise duty amounting to Rs. 2,13,557/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Thirteen Thousand Five Hundred Fifty Seven only) for the furniture under Chapter sub-heading No. 9403.00, flush doors under Chapter sub-heading No. 4410.11 and mirrors of sub-heading No. 7006.90 under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, read with Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 with interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and also proposing penalty under Section 11AC, read with Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and proposing appropriation of the amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs only) paid Page 0036 by them as against duty and other liability. The Additional Commissioner confirmed the demand and ordered interest, apart from imposing penalty of equal amount.
4. The issue involved in this appeal is that whether the Respondents or the Contractor is the manufacturer of the impugned goods and liable to pay central excise duty? 5. I have gone through the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). He dealt the matter in detail and also placed reliance on various case laws as listed therein. There appears to be nothing perverse in the impugned order.
6. The ld. counsel for the Respondents also rely upon the decision in the case of Ujgar Prints and M.N. Kambtwala, which in turn rely upon in the case of Northern Steel Pvt. Ltd. . In the case of M/s. Ujgar Prints, it is held that the job workers/processing owners become liable to pay excise duty not because they are the owners of the goods, but because they cause the manufacture of the goods.
7. The ld. Commissioner also gave specific findings that there is no evidence on record to hold that the Respondents have any specific interest in the business of the Contractor or that the Contractor is a dummy unit. On the contrary, the manufacturer otherwise has capacity to manufacture furniture and other items and has the machinery, equipment, workers and staff etc.
8. As I see the present appeal filed by the Department lacks merits accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.