According to the companymissioner, M s Aldec Corporation had fragmented the various processes referred to above involved in the manufacture of PAS for venetian blinds with the intention to evade duty that the customers were approaching M s Aldec Corporation for job work and that these customers did number approach M s VPI or M s SREW for job work that in fact M s Aldec Corporation was the job worker or in any event, M s Aldec Corporation companytrolled all the activities.
By the impugned decision, the tribunal came to the companyclusion that in the present case, the aluminium sheets bought by M s Aldec Corporation respondent herein were cut to aluminium strips by M s SREW that the thickness was reduced to .23 mm and that slitting of sheets into strips did number amount to manufacture.
The tribunal found that the issue involved in the present case stood decided as far back as 27.8.1987 vide order of the companymissioner holding that the painting activity carried out by M s VPI did number amount to manufacture.
According to the tribunal, both the decisions dated 26.11.1986 and 27.8.1987 were accepted and, therefore, the department has numberauthority to claim recovery of duty from M s Aldec Corporation companymencing from April 1990.
In the impugned judgment, the tribunal held that the earlier decisions dated 26.11.1986 and 27.8.1987 did number change with the introduction of the new tariff w.e.f.
and came to the companyclusion that M s VPI and M s SREW had partners who were wage earners employees of M s Aldec Corporation and that M s VPI and M s SREW were dummies created for the purposes of fragmenting the various activities processes with the idea of evading excise duty.
The companymissioner examined various documents, balance sheets, income expenditure statements etc.
Similarly, as far back as 26.11.1986, the companylector had held that the activity of slitting and rolling did number amount to manufacture.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision of the companymissioner, the matter was carried in appeal by M s Aldec Corporation respondent herein to the Customs, Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal hereinafter referred to as the tribunal .
Hence, these civil appeals.
28.2.1986 particularly when the processes carried out since 1985 remained unchanged.
