TMI Blog1983 (8) TMI 295X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... being taken up for disposal as such. It first came up before the Bench on 29th July, 1983. 2. Shri K.K. Kapoor, Consultant appeared for the appellants whereas Department was represented by Shri Hem Prakash, JDR. It was observed that the only controversy raised before the lower authorities by the appellants, was as to entitlement to the benefit of exemption Notifications; being Notifications Nos. 54/75-C.E., dated 1-3-1975 and No. 105/76-C.E., dated 16-3-1976. Both these Notifications have reference to the number of workers employed in a factory during a particular period and in order to get the benefit thereof, the manufacturers had to establish that the number of workers employed with them did not exceed 49. 3. The controversy relat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed again the same question, namely that the lower authorities had erred in holding the despatcher, or the carpenter or the cartman to be `workers , and that if these four persons were to be excluded, then the number of workers would remain below 49 during the entire period in dispute so as to make them eligible for the benefit of Exemption Notifications. However, at the time of hearing, the learned Consultant sought permission to raise another point which, according to him, could not be urged at the time the matter was being fought out before the lower authorities; but this issue, according to him, was entirely on point of law, and would not entail any fresh appreciation of facts, and that in view of the judgment of Gujarat High Court in Da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o show cause as well as in the orders where the appellants are throughout described as manufacturers of hosiery garments . He stated, that the items being produced by them are `Jangias and `Banians , and that the appellants had staked their claim to the exemption based on the two Notifications relatable to the number of workers on the assumption, which was then prevailing uniformly, that these articles of hosiery having been excluded from the scope of Tariff Entry 22D of the C.E.T., would automatically go to the Residuary Item 68, and that on this assumption, the appellants had claimed benefit of the Exemption Notifications. He pleaded that this was a wrong assumption on everybody s part, and that the matter has been set at rest by the Gu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the view expressed in the judgment was not challenged in any manner, and only solution sought or action taken was to make an amendment for future purposes. 8. When asked, the learned Departmental Representative did not controvert this position, namely, that this judgment was not taken up in appeal nor was there any other judgment to the contrary. He only sought to get out of this situation by urging that what was excluded from Tariff Entry 22D was articles of hosiery whereas what was being manufactured by the appellant were `hosiery garments , which, according to him, were distinct from `articles of hosiery . 9. We do not feel impressed with this subtle distinction brought out by the learned Departmental Representative, particula ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
