TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1998 (2) TMI 348
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g the relevant period fall under Tariff Item 68. By the impugned order captioned above the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-I held that the Appellants employing more than 9 workers and therefore was liable to be treated as a factory under Section 2(m) of the Factories Act, 1948 and were disentitled to the benefit of exemption under Notification 46/81, dated 01-03-1981. The Commissioner also rejected the Appellant's contention that they employed only 6 workers and held that certain persons employed by the two other concerns were the workers of the Appellant. The Commissioner directed the Assistant Commissioner to re-compute the Appellant's duty liability for the period 1-2-1985 to 31-7-19....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or Jyoti Refinery. They said Victor is a contractor undertaking job work of manufacturing of furnaces and doing repair work and the two persons are office boys doing only office work. On further enquiries and based on further statements the department came to the conclusion that in all 20 workers actually worked in Jyoti Refinery though their names are shown on different muster rolls. 3. It was further the case of the department that since August, 1982 Jyoti Refinery has been evading payment of Central Excise duty by mis-declaring the number of workers employed by them by showing the names of such workers on the muster rolls of Jyoti Engineering & Plastics and Jyoti Electronics, which are their sister concerns, have employed, the depa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed period under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 cannot be invoked for demanding duty for lack of evidence of suppression of facts and hence the Commissioner has restricted the demand in this case only for the period 1-2-1985 to 31-7-1985 i.e. normal period of 6 months. The learned Counsel submitted that in regard to the number of workers they had given declaration in April, 1984 up to period March, 1985. This declaration was for claiming exemption under Notification 46/81 and declaring that the unit is not covered under the Factories Act, 1948. This declaration had been verified and found correct. After verification the department has also allotted code number to the Appellants as an exempted unit. On 19-9-1984 again a fresh dec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... infirmities in the statements recorded from the various workmen, like recording of statement in English from workers who are not familiar with that language, partners have been taken as workers which is erroneous as they are not covered by the definition of workers in the Factories Act. The learned Counsel submitted that on cross-examination the department's case has not been supported by the witnesses. Therefore, it was pleaded that the personal penalty and the confiscation of the goods is bad in law as there is nothing on record to Show contumacious conduct by the Appellants. 5. Shri K.L. Ramteke, the ld. DR referred to the detailed reasoning given by the Commissioner in the impugned order and submitted that there is sufficient mat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tatement of persons found working in the units as well as those of partners on the reasoning that there is nothing in the Notification 46/81 which states that the appropriate authority for determining whether or not a particular unit is a factory or otherwise is Inspector of Factories and that their decision is binding on the department for grant of exemption under Notification 46/81. The Commissioner has gone on to conclude that what is required for treating a unit as a factory or otherwise under the Factories Act is the number of workers working which involves a simple process of counting of heads. If the Central Excise officers on a particular day of visit found the number of workers as more than 9, denying the benefit of Notification to....