9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (3) TMI 249X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... P. No. 9853/81 giving the appellants a right of filing the appeals within 4 weeks from the date of the order of the Writ Petition viz. 4-11-1986. The Appellants herein are small scale units manufacturing goods falling under Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. The appellants claimed benefit under Notification No. 176/77, dated 13-6-1977 on the ground that the value of the Plant and Machinery installed in the respective industrial units of the appellants did not in each case exceed Rs. 10 lakhs as provided for in the notification and that the value of the goods cleared for home consumption from the industrial unit of the each of the appellants did not exceed Rs. 30 lakhs during the preceding financial year. It is not disputed before us that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taken the view that the fact that the goods were manufactured on behalf of the customers would have no relevance to construe the notification referred to supra. The learned Counsel also placed reliance on the ruling of the Special Bench, CEGAT, New Delhi in the case of M/s. Mahavir Metal Industries, Bombay v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay reported in 1987(28) E.L.T. 85 (Tribunal) and also on another Special Bench ruling of CEGAT, New Delhi in the case of M/s. Techma Engineering Enterprise, Calcutta v. Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta reported in 1987(27) E.L.T. 460 (Tribunal). 3. The learned DR contended that inasmuch as the appellants manufactured and cleared the goods only on behalf of and on account of raw material supplier ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 2(f) and therefore the question of their being entitled to any exemption in terms of the aforesaid notification would not arise since the total clearances of the appellants should be deemed to be the clearances of the raw material suppliers and would not qualify for to the benefit of any exemption notification at all. We are not inclined to accept the plea of the learned DR that the appellants are not manufacturers within the meaning of Section 2(f) with reference to the goods manufactured and cleared by them. It is not the case of the department that the appellants who are independent manufacturers were mere surrogates of the raw material suppliers or that the appellants were set up as mere dummies by the raw material suppliers. It is no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e was clear and cogent evidence on the record of the department to enable the assessing authorities to make inferential findings that the transactions of alleged sale of yarn by Tejpal to the powerloom owners and the transactions of alleged purchase of cloth by the petitioner from the powerloom owners were camouflage for the petitioner to get powerloom cloth manufactured by himself by employing powerloom of the powerloom owners. As we stated earlier it is not the case of the department that the appellants are the dummies or the agents of the raw material suppliers. Likewise the ruling reported in 1986(8) ETR 665 in the case of H. Guru Instruments (Pvt.) Ltd., Calcutta v. Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta relied upon by the learned DR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
