TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1991 (1) TMI 287
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the five appeals because common issues are involved. 3. Brief facts of the cases are that, the Respondents are receiving the fabrics from M/s. Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Company Ltd. cut to size of the bed covers, bed sheets and pillows. The Respondents, thereafter, carry out the remaining part of the work, i.e. stitching, hemming and affixing the brand name of M/s. Bombay Dyeing on the goods and then, subsequently packing on the basis of job charges received by them from M/s. Bombay Dyeing. Question that is involved herein in all the matters is, whether, the Respondents are entitled to draw the benefit of Notification No. 175/86, dated 1-3-1986 (as amended). The finding of the original authority has been that the respondents are actua....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....L.T. 85. 7. We have carefully considered the pleas advanced from both sides. It is now a well settled proposition, through a catena of judgments of the Supreme Court, this Tribunal and of the various High Courts that a raw material supplier does not necessarily become a manufacturer; the manufacturer is one who actually manufactures or fabricates the goods. In order that the actual raw material supplier should be a manufacturer, something more is required to be brought on record as evidence which should show that the job worker or the actual fabricator of the goods is merely dummy unit or it is a puppet in the hands of the person supplying a raw material and that he is under the control or supervision of the persons supplying the raw mater....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....It is possible that during the period under scrutiny by the department in these cases, the Respondents did not produce any defective goods which could be rejected by M/s. Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Company. 8. Reliance placed by the learned DR on the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of M/s. Swadeshi Dyeing is misplaced. We have gone through that judgment and find that the evidence brought on record was sufficient to prove that the two units involved in that case were one and the same. Excerpts from paras 7 & 8 from the said judgment are reproduced below: "In other words the exemption in respect of processes of calendering and stentering is available provided the other process of bleaching and mercerising is not carried out in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....firm to the company is nothing but a camouflage to indicate that the two units are separate. There is further telltale circumstance to indicate that the two units are one and the same. The two units spent substantial sum in August 1985 for construction of a compound wall between the area of the two units. It is impossible to believe that a large amount would be spent when the lease to the company is only for a duration of eleven months. Even in spite of construction of a compound, an opening was left to enable the employees of the two units to travel over and the tankers of the partnership firm are parked in the area which is alleged to have been let out to the company. The common door in the compound wall enables the two units to enjoy the....