Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the appellant was a manufacturer of cotton fabrics within the meaning of the excise law and therefore liable to excise duty, and whether the exemption notifications for powerloom factories were available to it.
Analysis: The record showed that the appellant supplied yarn to the weavers, financed production, controlled the movement and sale of the cloth, and retained the commercial advantage from the transactions. The findings of the departmental authorities were concurrent that the so-called sale of yarn and purchase of cloth was only a device to disguise actual manufacture by the appellant on its own account. Those findings were supported by evidence and were not shown to suffer from any legal infirmity. On that footing, the appellant fell within the statutory concept of manufacturer and could not claim the benefit of the exemption granted only to the specified powerloom units.
Conclusion: The appellant was liable as a manufacturer and the exemption notifications were inapplicable; the challenge to the excise demand failed.
Ratio Decidendi: Where concurrent departmental findings, supported by evidence, show that an apparent sale-and-purchase arrangement is merely a device masking production on the appellant's own account, the appellant is liable as a manufacturer for excise purposes and cannot invoke a limited exemption meant for independent powerloom units.