ORDER
P.C. Jain, Vice President
1. Relevant facts of this case are as follows:-
1.1 The appellants herein are manufacturers of ACSR Weasel Conductor. On the order of two customers, namely M/s. Mohan Aluminium P. Ltd. and M/s. Mysore Conductors P. Ltd. – both belonging to Bangalore – the appellants supplied the aforesaid conductors to UPSEB but they made the invoices to the aforesaid two parties. This arrangement was made on the direction of the appellants’ customers, as aforesaid. The appellants in the first instance herein paid full duty on the said conductors. On being pointed by the customers of the appellants that no duty is chargeable since the appellants availed the benefit of Notification 175/86-C.E. the appellants issued the credit notes to the said two customers and then they filed the refund claims in respect of the duty so paid by them initially with the department.
1.2 The Assistant Collector rejected the refund claims on the ground that despite the information sought from the appellants to the effect whether the two Bangalore parties were eligible for SSI benefit of the Notification No. 175/86-C.E., the appellants had not been able to supply that information and consequently two refunds are not admissible to the appellants. On this basis, the refund claims were rejected. On appeals before lower appellate authority they did not succeed. The lower appellate authority adopted the arguments of the original adjudicating authority. Hence these appeals before us.
2. Learned Advocate, Shri K.K. Anand for the appellants urges that the appellants manufactured the ACSR cables on their own behalf and they did not manufacture the cables and removed the cables from the factory on behalf of the customers of Bangalore. The Bangalore parties were merely the customers of the said cables and on the direction of the customers they sent the said cables directly to UPSEB for whom those cables were actually meant. On the basis of this evidence alone, it cannot be held that the goods were cleared by the appellants herein from their factory on behalf of the parties at Bangalore. Learned Advocate, therefore, submits that the benefit of Notification has been wrongly denied and therefore, the refunds had been wrongly rejected. He, therefore, prays for allowing the appeals.
3. Learned SDR, Shri R.D. Negi on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the lower authorities, as already set out above.
4. We have carefully considered the pleas advanced from both sides. We agree with the submission of the learned Advocate for the appellants that merely because the invoices have been made in the name of the parties at Bangalore and the goods have been sent to UPSEB directly on the direction of the customers – two parties at Bangalore, it cannot be held that the goods were manufactured by the appellants on behalf of the said two parties of Bangalore. The appellants herein are independent manufacturers on their own right manufacturing the goods with their own raw materials and machines. On the evidence available it cannot at all be sustained that the goods were manufactured on behalf of the customers in Bangalore. Consequently, there is no justification for denying the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. The appellants are, therefore, entitled to the benefit of refund of duty subject to the satisfaction that they had not passed on the burden of duty to their customers, as laid down in the present provision of Section 11B. Appeals are, therefore, allowed, after we set aside the impugned order, subject to verification by the authorities below, as directed above.