1994 (10) TMI 61

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... under Notification No. 88 of 1977- C.E., dated 9-5-1977, the Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh by his order dated 21-8-1980 held that the number of workmen directly employed by the appellant as well as the number of workmen employed by M/s. Stepwell Industries Limited are to be counted and as the number of workmen in both the factories exceeded 49, the appellant was not entitled to the benefit of aforesaid Notification. 3.The Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as `the Tribunal') affirmed the aforesaid finding of the Collector saying that for purposes of granting or refusing the benefit of the Notification aforesaid the number of workers working in the factory of the appellant as well as th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e factories. It was pointed out that M/s. Stepwell Industries shall not be deemed to be a factory belonging to the appellant, as such the workmen of M/s. Stepwell Industries should not be counted for purposes of granting or refusing benefit of the Notification. It was also submitted that the expression `such footwears' occurring in proviso (i) has to be read with reference to the footwears manufactured directly by the appellant in their own factory and the number of workmen working in the factory of the appellant shall be the determining factor. 5.Before this aspect could be examined in detail, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, drew our attention to the agreement dated 1-8-1977 between the appellant and M/s. Stepwell Indu....