9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (8) TMI 283X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [Order per : J.H. Joglekar, Member (T)]. The respondents in this appeal from Revenue were manufacturing footwear exempted in terms of Notification No. 88/77-C.E., dated 9-5-1977. On 24-6-1981, the Preventive Officer visited the factory and on examination of the attendance registers concluded that the factory was operated with power and the number of workers was in excess of 49. On the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder of the Additional Collector and directed him to examine this point in de novo proceedings. The Additional Collector after hearing the assessee in his order dated 31-12-1987 held that the number of workers in the Boot (Footwear) Section was less than 49 and dropped proceedings. Against this order the Revenue have come up in appeal. 2. Shri Satnam Singh, learned Senior Departmental Representa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se the registers to see whether their claim was correct. He referred to the Paragraph 13.2.2 which brings out that copies of the attendance registers was attached with the seizure panchnama which showed the number of workers employed in the three distinctive Sections of the factory. Therefore, it was not merely guess work that unabled the Additional Collector to accept their claim. 3. We have ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f a statement. It is his submission that word statement should have been a `register showing the attendance of the workers in the Harness Section. On perusal of the paragraph it appears that the registers before the Additional Collector did give the number of workers in the individual section. In paragraph 8 of the order a claim was made before the Additional Collector the Civil Section employe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
