Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + SC Central Excise - 1971 (12) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1971 (12) TMI 43 - SC - Central ExciseWhether firm continued to employ the looms in the factories after December, 1956 when direct purchases of the manufactured cloth were suspended? Held that:- From account books it was seen during the course of personal hearing that yarn was supplied on various dates between July, 1956 to April, 1957 (even after December 1956) of the total value of ₹ 54,776-2-9 to M/s. Chintamani Wvg. Mills. In addition cash advances were made on different occasions between these dates amounting to ₹ 12,875,00. The total payments made by the factory to your firm amount to ₹ 60,211-3-6. There are no accounts to indicate that the individual factory owners were charged for any expenditure on account of baling or for transport. It passes comprehension why a commercial concern engaged with profit taking motive should first advance large sum of monies to the individual factory owners, receive their entire production supply sized beams of yarn, get the cloth processed at Bombay, make sales and charge no forwarding commission, on baling expenses and no transport charges. Under these circumstances, unable to agree with contention that you ceased to employ looms from the individual factories after December, 1956. The conclusions of the Assistant Collector and of the Collector which are identical that one out of the 16 units of factories manufacturing cloth on behalf of the appellant was a licensed one are amply supported by evidence on the record and have not been shown to be vitiated by any legal error nor has any grave injustice been shown to have resulted thereby to the appellant. On these conclusions there can be no doubt that appellant is a manufacturer within the contemplation of the Act and the exemption under item (10) of the notification dated March 1, 1956 or under item (7) of the notification dated Januray 5, 1957 is not available to the appellant. Appeal dismissed.
|