1969 (9) TMI 39

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... The learned Counsel for the petitioners strenuously contends that the petitioners are not manufacturing excisable goods within the meaning of Sec.<|>2 (d) of the Act, that there is no notification made by the Central Government as required by Sec.<|>6 of the Act, and Rule 174 of the Central Excise Rules made under the Act is not applicable to the petitioners and that the footwear below the value of Rs. 5/- per pair has been exempted by the Central Govt. by its notification under Sec. 3, dated 27-7-1967 and hence the petitioners are not required to take out a licence under the Act. 3. On notice being given to the Counsel for the Central Government the Central Government Standing Counsel has appeared and urged that Rule 174(2)(a) is appl....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....equires the manufacturers, traders or other persons to take out a licence. That rule reads thus :- "Every manufacturer, trader or person hereinafter mentioned, shall be required to take out a licence and shall not conduct his business in regard to such goods otherwise than by the authority, and subject to the terms and conditions of a licence granted by a duly authorised officer in the proper form." 6. Rule 174(2)(B) relating to other excisable goods except salt specifically mentions the class of manufacturers. Rule 175 prescribes the procedure for obtaining licence as required under Rule 174. Rule 175 gives the form of application. 7. It is clear from the facts stated in the affidavit that the petitioners are manufacturers of foot....