9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (6) TMI 403X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... DR, for the Respondent. [Order per : D.N. Panda, Member (J)]. - The Appellant came in appeal against ex parte de novo order-in-original dated 7-11-2003 challenging the order on following two counts: (1) That the appellant not satisfying definition of term 'factory' under Factories Act, 1948 is not liable to duty; and (2) It is entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 89/79, dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ise, Surat-II reported in 2003 (157) E.L.T. 208 (Tri-Mumbai). 2.2 Ld. Authorised Representative for the Appellant also submitted a written note of argument and argued that the Appellant does not satisfy the definition of term "factory" when it had not employed more than 9 workers for the manufacturing activity and such fact was well evident from Letter No. 463/R dated 13-11-1985 issued by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le Tribunal on 27-9-1985 for which adjournment was sought and the authority without considering such adjournment, having decided the matter ex parte that was set aside by the Hon'ble Tribunal on 17-5-1989 by Order No. A/400/Cal/1999-Cal. But even after set aside, the matter was decided ex parte. 3. The ld. JDR appearing for Revenue supported the order of the authorities below and relied on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s were rigid on their own stand relying on document issued by different public authorities. While the appellant relied on the letter issued by Inspector of Factories, Revenue relied on the documents available in the office of the ESI and EPF authorities. The first document proved that the appellant had not employed requisite number of workers to be called as "factory" while the second set of docum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
