1992 (9) TMI 233 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 54/75 based on the number of workers engaged in the production of excisable goods in a factory.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Facts of the Case and Initial Proceedings:
The appeal arose from an order by the Collector of Customs & Central Excise rejecting a claim for refund of Rs. 32,001.17 by M/s. S.L. Prakasan, seeking exemption under Notification No. 115/75 for workers engaged in manufacturing excisable goods below 50. The Assistant Collector rejected the claim, stating the muster roll showed 64 workers during the relevant period, exceeding the threshold. The Collector (Appeals) remanded the matter for de novo proceedings, emphasizing the need for full disclosure of information regarding workers engaged in production.

2. Collector (Appeals) Decision and Arguments:
The Collector (Appeals) held that only workers engaged in the production of excisable goods, specifically periodicals, should be considered for exemption, excluding those involved in exempted goods like text-books. The Collector also excluded certain staff like clerks and typists from the worker count. The appellant contended that exempted goods remain excisable, citing relevant case law to support the inclusion of all workers related to the manufacturing process.

3. Legal Analysis and Decision:
The Tribunal analyzed the eligibility under Notification No. 54/75, which exempts goods produced in a factory with fewer than 50 workers. It clarified that exempted goods do not cease to be excisable, referencing precedents to support this view. The Tribunal also addressed the inclusion of all workers, including clerks and typists, as part of the manufacturing process, citing legal interpretations that clerical duties can qualify as work under the factory definition. The Tribunal highlighted the need to consider all workers on the premises, except in cases of physical separation, which was not established here. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Collector (Appeals) decision, ruling that the total number of workers engaged in producing text-books and periodicals exceeded 50, rendering the respondents ineligible for exemption.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision clarified the interpretation of the law regarding the eligibility for exemption based on the number of workers engaged in the production of excisable goods in a factory. The ruling emphasized that exempted goods remain excisable and all workers related to the manufacturing process should be considered unless physically separated.