Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →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 petitioners, who manufactured fan-guards on job work basis for another company and received raw materials from that company, could be treated as mere job workers or whether the supplying company was the manufacturer for the purpose of denying exemption from licence and excise duty.
Analysis: The petitioners carried on an independent manufacturing activity in their own factory, employed their own staff, and also manufactured fan-guards for other customers. The mere supply of raw materials by a customer under a job-work arrangement did not justify the conclusion that the customer, and not the petitioners, was the manufacturer. The assumption that the petitioners were not entitled to the exemption and were bound to take out an L-4 licence was therefore based on an unwarranted factual premise.
Conclusion: The denial of exemption and insistence on licence and duty was unjustified; the issue was decided in favour of the petitioners.
Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded and the impugned departmental action was quashed, with the rule made absolute and consequential relief granted.
Ratio Decidendi: In a job-work arrangement, the mere supply of raw materials by the customer does not, by itself, make the customer the manufacturer; the actual manufacturer is the person carrying on the manufacturing activity in its own unit.