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 contractor and his assistant engaged in the cutting process were to be included as workers for determining whether the factory had 10 or more workers and was liable to Central Excise duty under Tariff Item 68.
Analysis: The definition of "factory" under Section 2(m) of the Factories Act, 1948 depends upon the presence of 10 or more workers working or having worked on any day of the preceding twelve months. The definition of "worker" under Section 2(I) of the Factories Act, 1948 is inclusive and covers persons employed directly or through any agency, including contractors, with or without the knowledge of the principal employer, in any manufacturing process. Since the contractor and his assistant were engaged in the process of cutting connected with manufacture, they were required to be counted as workers.
Conclusion: The assessee's factory fell within the statutory definition of a factory and Central Excise duty under Tariff Item 68 was leviable. The appeal was rightly allowed in favour of the Revenue.