9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (4) TMI 292X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ols, jigs and fixtures, dies and moulds ; (iv) Conducting short-term and long-term course for the representatives of small scale industries of the area ; (v) To develop after research small and medium size tools conforming to the needs of the small-scale industries ; and (vi) To upgrade production technology in small-scale industries which will improve the quality of the components and bring down the total cost of production and also shall help to increase the rate of production in general and of small-scale industries in particular. The appellant is maintaining a Tool Room to impart training to tool makers of press tools, etc. On 1-10-1982 the appellant wrote a letter to the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Ludhiana, for clarification whether the special types of tools produced in the tool room be liable for Excise duty. The Central Excise authorities required the appellant to file a declaration under Notification No. 80/80-C.E. The appellant file declarations for the years 1981-82 to 1982-84 before the Superintendent, Central Excise, Ludhiana. In the declarations the appellant claimed exemptions under Notification No. 80/80-C.E., dated 19-6-1980. The tools cleared ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Naidu College Committee, Nidubrolu and others v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others). (iii) AIR 1970 Patna 163 (V 57 C 26) (K.C. Thomas v. R.L. Gadeock and another). (iv) 1983 E.L.T. 155 (CEGAT) [Embarkation Headquarters (HAL) v. Collector of Customs, Bombay]. (v) 1984 (15) E.L.T. 544 (Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, Lucknow v. Collector of Customs, Bombay). The learned Counsel for the appellant emphasised that the institution cannot be deemed to be Government of India and the benefit of Notification No. 80/80-C.E., dated 19-6-1980 would be attracted. She also submitted that the institution was not functioning on a commercial scale and that the goods sold were the products arising in the course of the educational and research work. As the excisable goods were produced in a technical and research institute in the course of the training, she said, the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 167/71, dated 11-9-1971 would be applicable. 5. Shri K.D. Tayal, SDR, argued that this Society was financed by the Government of India and it was not a Corporation but only an Association of persons though for certain purposes it was recognised as a jurisdic entity. He subm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the appellant. The appellant has filed the certificate of registration dated 9-4-1979 issued by the Registrar of Firms and Societies, Punjab, under the Societies Registration Act. The appellant has also produced the Memorandum of Association and Rules and Regulations. Among others we find that the objective for which the Society has been established is for conducting short-term and part time courses for representatives of small scale industries of the area. It also provides common service facilities for the manufacture of tools, jigs and fixtures, dies and moulds for small scale industries. The main objective is to increase the efficiency of small scale units in the Northern Region. The management of the affairs of the Society is entrusted to a Governing Council consisting of the Development Commissioner, Department of Industrial Development, a representative each of Integrated Finance Department and the Ministry of Industry, representative of Punjab Government, Department of Industry, representative of Governments of Jammu and Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh and Haryana and Chandigarh Administration besides others. The Governing Council shall remain in office for a period of 3 years ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t he was holding a civil post under the Union and was entitled to the protection of Article 311 of the Constitution. A question arose as to what was exactly the legal character of a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. This decision refers to an earlier ruling of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1962 Supreme Court 458 (V 49 C 71) [Board of Trustees, Ayurvedic and Unani Tibia College, Delhi v. State of Delhi (now Delhi Administration) and another]. The members constituting the Sainik School Society were ex-officio holders of office in the Central Government or various State Governments. The Chief Ministers of various States besides the Defence Minister of the Centre had control over the management of the Society. It was held that the control or management of the Society or its institutions was not to be left in the hands of any Government either the Central or of any one State. Their Lordships took the view following the earlier decisions that once a Society is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 the Society enjoys the status of a legal entity apart from its members constituting the same and is capable of suing or being sued . The Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... all excisable goods produced in a technical, educational and research institute in the course of training. We do not accept the contentions of the appellant on this ground, because the appellant - Tool Room provides consultancy services to engineering industry. It also provides facilities for design and manufacture of high quality precision tools. The scrutiny of their records show that the Unit has manufactured tools classifiable under T.I. No. 51-A according to the specifications of various parties on orders or advice on commercial basis. So the goods produced cannot be treated as goods manufactured in the course of imparting technical training. The appellant-institution is not also an educational or research institute. Moreover, it is seen that the appellant-institution has not complied with the other requirements of the Notifications, namely, production of evidence as may be required by the Collector for verifying that the goods had been produced only in the course of training. The lower authorities have, therefore, rightly held that the appellant-institution has not established that it is entitled to the benefit of these Notifications. 13. A cross-appeal has been filed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
