TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1992 (4) TMI 137
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ection 35P of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. 2. We have heard Shri Gopal Prashad, learned Consultant for the appellants and Shri S.K. Sharma, learned JDR for the revenue. 3. Arguing for the appellants Shri Gopal Prashad submitted that appellants were entitled to claim exemption from licensing control and payment of duty since they were neither 'factor/ nor registered as factory under Factories Act, 1948 but they were registered under Shops and Establishment Act. He contended that the appellants' Unit was not a factory as defined under Factories Act and the Collector erred in holding that the concept of factory under the Factories Act was given up with effect from 1-4-1981 with reference to the wordings used in Notification No. 46....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e appellants' Unit as a factory. He referred to the circular issued by the Board wherein it was clarified that since such persons who work incidental or ancillary of completion of manufactured products, are not employed within the premises of the factory, they are not covered by the definition of 'worker' given in Section 2(1) of the Factories Act. He also cited the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Mrs. Kaushatya Narayanan And Others v. Dadajee Dhackjee & Co. (Pvt.) Ltd., [1980 (6) E.L.T. 102 (Bom.)], wherein it was held that a process which has nothing to do with the manufacture of excisable goods and the persons employed in such a process are not to be taken into account for computing the strength of the workers for eligib....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se is whether ten or more workers were working on any day of the preceding twelve months with the aid of power to deny the benefit of exemption. In other words the dispute is in respect of number of persons employed. The point at issue was not clearly discussed in the impugned order. But we find that appellants themselves have admitted that they were having nine workers with a facility of power as per their letter dated 19-5-1981 and further in the Muster Roll it was shown that nine workers were employed in the preceding year from January 1980 to May, 1980. The contention of the appellants is that remaining persons cannot be treated as workers since they were neither employed at factory nor worked within the premises of factory. We can conf....