9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (5) TMI 84X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by `hired labourers' can be sustained. On the other hand we find, on the facts, the house-hold ladies are the manufacturers of the goods in question and the liability to excise duty will be attracted on their manufacture of the goods and therefore, it cannot be clubbed with the goods manufactured in the factory premises of the respondents to deny the exemption claimed. On the facts of this case and in the light of the pronouncements of this Court on the question of liability to excise duty, we do not think that there is any case for interference with the order of the CEGAT. We answer the point against the appellant. - 4032 of 1987 - - - Dated:- 9-5-1996 - K. Venkataswami and Sujata V. Manohar, JJ. [Order per : K. Venkataswam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1981 effective from 13-4-1981 filed under Tariff Item 14F the respondents claimed exemption for the first clearance of Rs. 7.5 lakhs under Notification No. 80/80-C.E., dated 19-6-1980 for the year 1981-82. As the value of total clearances of goods falling under 14F and those manufactured from outside the factory on their behalf without the aid of power as mentioned above during the previous year namely 1980-81 exceeded Rs. 70 lakhs, the Superintendent of Central Excise issued a Show Cause Notice on 29-5-1981 calling upon the respondents to explain why the exemption claimed by them under Notification No. 80/80-C.E. in respect of Tariff Item 14F goods should not be disallowed. After considering the explanation, the Assistant Collector of Cent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ewing the order of the Assistant Collector was not correct and, therefore, set aside the Collector's order and restored the order of the Assistant Collector. 4.Aggrieved by that the present appeal has been filed by the revenue. 5.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant placing heavy reliance on the fact of the respondents having paid 'wages' to the house-hold ladies for manufacturing agarbatti, amlapodi and dhup etc. contended that the goods manufactured by such house-hold ladies though in their own premises must be taken as manufactured in the factory of the respondents. It is not in dispute that levy of excise duty is attracted on the incident of manufacture. Therefore, counsel on both sides paid much attention to this aspect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s [1985 (20) E.L.T. 179]. 7.We have considered the submissions advanced before us by the learned counsel on both the sides. We find force in the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondents : on the admitted facts which we will set out immediately the respondents cannot be considered as manufacturers of agarbatti, amlapodi and dhup etc. manufactured in the premises of house-hold ladies as described above without the aid of power. The undisputed facts are that the respondents supplied raw materials for rolling incense sticks etc. to outside manufacturers and paid wages to them on the basis of number of pieces manufactured. Such manufacture was without the aid of power. There was no supervision over the manufacture. Incense sticks w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
