9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (10) TMI 127X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and 30% respectively. 2. Prior to commencement of this Unit at Baroda the same partners were having another Unit with the same firm name at Bombay with equal percentage in profit and loss under a separate partnership deed. 3. It was alleged by the Revenue that the goods manufactured by the Unit at Bombay of the partnership firm at Bombay had exceeded Rs. 40 lakhs in clearances from their factory at that place during the preceding financial year 1983-84. The authorities below feeling that since all the partners in both partnership firms at Bombay and Baroda are the same, manufacturers are having 2 units, one at Bombay and another at Baroda. It was therefore, felt by the authorities below that the clearances of the unit at Baroda during t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs is being done by a machine which is operated with power. The machine was found installed in the factory premises at Baroda. Testing being essential to the manufacture of goods, therefore, the benefit of Notification 179/77-C.E. was not extended to the appellants as claimed. Ld. Advocate in rebuttal of said finding has submitted that testing was being done only in respect of such switch gears for which the customers required so; otherwise the testing was not essential for the manufacture of the goods. Both sides have quoted citations in their favour. It is not necessary for us to discuss those citations in this judgment because the question, whether, testing is essential to the manufacture of a commodity depends upon the facts and circums ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Factories Act. Hence the appellants cannot be extended the benefit of Notification 46/81-C.E. Finding of the Lower Appellate Authority to that effect is also confirmed. 5. Third plea of the ld. Advocate for the appellants says that they are entitled to the benefit of Notification 77/83-C.E. inasmuch as partnership firm at Baroda is a person different from the partnership at Bombay. The clearance of the two Units cannot be considered as one for the purpose of determining the benefit of the said notification. In support of this submission ld. Advocate has relied upon 3-Member Judgment of this Tribunal in the case of G.D. Industrial Engineers, Faridabad v. Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh reported in 1983 (14) E.L.T. 1994 (CEGAT). In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
