9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (9) TMI 200X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y sheds of the appellant were two premises by themselves and none of their precincts was common. In the factory shed at Plot No. 3662, power is being used having the workers less than ten. In the other factory shed at Plot No. 3664, power was not being used but the workers were less than twenty. 1.2 In the aforesaid undisputed factual situation, on or about 17-1-1980, the officers of Central Excise Preventive Organisation, Calcutta, visited the appellant s two factory sheds as aforesaid and searched the said premises on the basis of search authorisation. On search, a huge number of records and documents relating to manufacture and sale of the excisable goods falling under erstwhile Tariff Item No. 68, were recovered. 1.3 On the basis of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y submits that the adjudicating authority s finding to the effect that the benefit of description under Tariff Item 68 as it existed before 1-3-1979 and the benefit of Notification 85/79-C.E., dated 1-3-1979 would not be available to the appellant is not correct in the facts and circumstances of the case. He has pointed out that it is not denied that the two factory sheds are on two different Plots and are having separate premises. The two factory sheds, he further submits, are also separated by another factory in Plot No. 3663. It is also not disputed, submits the ld. advocate that in one factory, power was being used but the workers were less than ten and, therefore, that factory in which the power was being used would not be covered by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s that the two factory sheds would be covered by the expression `precincts which is included within the definition of factory under Section 2(m) of the Factory Act inasmuch as two sheds are closed by just separated by one factory in between. 4. We have carefully considered the pleas advanced from both sides. We observe as rightly pointed out by the ld. advocate for the appellant that the two factory sheds are different premises including the precincts thereof. Therefore, each of the factory shed has to be taken as a factory, though under the control of the appellant. We have, therefore, to determine whether the goods produced in each of the two factory sheds are liable to excise duty or not. Prior to 1-3-1979, the description of the good ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were fully exempted from the payment of duty or did not fall under the tariff description of Item No. 68 as it stood dated 28-2-1979. We also observe on the given facts and circumstances as set out above that each of the factory shed of the appellant was a factory itself not covered by the Factory Act. Consequently, the goods manufactured therein during the entire relevant period 1-4-1978 to 17-1-1980 were non-excisable up to 28-2-1979 and were exempted from 1-3-1979 to 17-1-980. Therefore, no duty liability arises on the appellant. Attempt of the adjudicating authority to bring in the appellant by clubbing workers of two factory sheds is not correct in the facts and circumstances, in view of our aforesaid findings that the two factory she ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
