Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1991 (1) TMI 287

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... olved. 3. Brief facts of the cases are that, the Respondents are receiving the fabrics from M/s. Bombay Dyeing Manufacturing Company Ltd. cut to size of the bed covers, bed sheets and pillows. The Respondents, thereafter, carry out the remaining part of the work, i.e. stitching, hemming and affixing the brand name of M/s. Bombay Dyeing on the goods and then, subsequently packing on the basis of job charges received by them from M/s. Bombay Dyeing. Question that is involved herein in all the matters is, whether, the Respondents are entitled to draw the benefit of Notification No. 175/86, dated 1-3-1986 (as amended). The finding of the original authority has been that the respondents are actually a sort of hired labour and the real manufa .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... We have carefully considered the pleas advanced from both sides. It is now a well settled proposition, through a catena of judgments of the Supreme Court, this Tribunal and of the various High Courts that a raw material supplier does not necessarily become a manufacturer; the manufacturer is one who actually manufactures or fabricates the goods. In order that the actual raw material supplier should be a manufacturer, something more is required to be brought on record as evidence which should show that the job worker or the actual fabricator of the goods is merely dummy unit or it is a puppet in the hands of the person supplying a raw material and that he is under the control or supervision of the persons supplying the raw material. No such .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... le that during the period under scrutiny by the department in these cases, the Respondents did not produce any defective goods which could be rejected by M/s. Bombay Dyeing Manufacturing Company. 8. Reliance placed by the learned DR on the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of M/s. Swadeshi Dyeing is misplaced. We have gone through that judgment and find that the evidence brought on record was sufficient to prove that the two units involved in that case were one and the same. Excerpts from paras 7 8 from the said judgment are reproduced below: In other words the exemption in respect of processes of calendering and stentering is available provided the other process of bleaching and mercerising is not carried out in the same f .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he company is nothing but a camouflage to indicate that the two units are separate. There is further telltale circumstance to indicate that the two units are one and the same. The two units spent substantial sum in August 1985 for construction of a compound wall between the area of the two units. It is impossible to believe that a large amount would be spent when the lease to the company is only for a duration of eleven months. Even in spite of construction of a compound, an opening was left to enable the employees of the two units to travel over and the tankers of the partnership firm are parked in the area which is alleged to have been let out to the company. The common door in the compound wall enables the two units to enjoy the premises .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... lead to the conclusion that separate processes are carried out in two separate factories is correct. In our judgment, on the strength of the findings recorded by the Collector, the conclusion that the units should apply for a fresh licence or amendment of the licence as required under Rule 174 cannot be faulted with. The order of the Collector does not suffer from any infirmity and the petitions must fail." 9. Similarly, the cases of H. Guru Instrument P. Ltd., Calcutta v. CCE, Calcutta [1987 (27) E.L.T. 269] relied upon by the Appellant-Collector in his appeal-Memo, has also been decided on the peculiar facts of that case and the ratio of that decision cannot be applied to the facts and circumstances of this case. So is the case with th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates