1996 (5) TMI 84 - SUPREME COURT

Whether the appellant was right in treating the respondents as manufacturers of agarbatti, amlapodi and dhup etc. even though they were manufactured in various premises of the household ladies outside the factory of the respondents?

Held that:- CEGAT after considering the materials before it concluded that the respondents are not the manufacturers of agarbati, amlapodi, dhup etc.. manufactured by various cottage type manufacturers on job work basis. On the facts narrated above, we do not think that the assumption of the Collector that the respondents got the goods in question manufactured 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.