Hence this appeal.
The Service Centre sends these materials to outside job workers for making the stators.
It appears that the appeal filed against the order made in the Shriram Refrigeration case supra to this Court stood dismissed by this Court in Civil Appeal Nos.1029 of 1987 and companynected matters on merits.
The appellant companytended that the job workers are manufacturers of stators and number the appellant as stators are received from the job workers in companyplete technically functional state.
The Adjudicating Authority held that the job workers is the manufacturer of the stator and number the appellants and that the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked.
The activities undertaken by the appellants are only to use the stator and number manufacture the stators.
The stators were earlier manufactured in the factory of the appellants for repairing of the companypressors.
On appeal to the Appellate Tribunal, it was held that the appellants are manufacturers of the stators and number the job workers because they undertook the process of shaping, varnishing and baking and then only the marketable goods came into existence and it also held that the extended period of limitation was invokable.
Thereafter the appellant undertook the shaping, varnishing and baking of such stator to fit such stators into the companypressor housing.
The Collector having felt that the activity of shaping, varnishing and baking done by the appellant on receipt of the stator from the job workers results in manufacture and initiated proceedings for adjudication of tax.
WITH C.A. No.
Later, the materials required for replacing the scrapped companyponents are received on payment of duty from the factory of the appellant.
The appellant in the process of repairing scraps some companyponents which cannot be repaired and one such companyponent is stators.
The appellants also challenged the invocation of the longer period of limitation, which was available to the appellants only in case of suppression of fraud, companylition or willful statement or companytravention of rules to the payment of duty.
Somewhat similar questions had arisen for companysideration in Shriram Refrigeration Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad, 1986 26 E.L.T. 353 and in CCE, New Delhi V. Karna Industries, 1992 42 ECR 522.
