1993 (9) TMI 129

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....us places in the country. According to its case, it was also purchasing the footwear manufactured by certain small manufacturers and selling them under its own brand `Jalsa' and `Bata'. Respondents 4 to 7 in the Writ Petition (Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 in this Appeal) are such small manufacturers. 3.Under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, the Central Govt. issued a notification being Notification No. 93/67, dated 26th May, 1967 exempting certain small manufacturers of footwear from the payment of duty. The said Notifications was amended by Notification No. 103/76, dated 16th March, 1976. These notifications did not affect the Respondent. However, on 9th May, 1977, the Central Govt. issued an other notification (No. 88/77) in supersession ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rse Power is used, exempt from duty. (The said Respondents 4 to 7 satisfy this requirement). The notification, however, says further that where the footwear manufactured by such a manufacturer and affixed with the brand or trade name of another manufacturer or is purchased by another manufacturer, "it shall be deemed to have been manufactured by or on behalf of such other manufacturer." Applying this explanation, it appears, the Central Excise Authorities had issued a demand notice to Bata India Ltd. (Respondent herein) treating it as the manufacturer. 5.The Respondent did not choose to pursue the remedies prescribed by law but chose to approach the High Court straightaway. Its contention was that inasmuch as it is only a purchaser from ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....to shift the liability of the manufacturer/producer to a person who is not the manufacturer or producer of such goods. S. 3 cannot be overridden by a notification under Rule 8, it held. So far as the contention of the Revenue that Respondents 4 to 7 in the Writ Petition were ancillaries of the Respondent is concerned, the High Court brushed it aside observing that the basis of the impugned demand was the Explanation in the notification and not that the Respondents 4 to 7 were its ancillaries. 7.In our opinion, this was not a matter which the High Court should have entertained under Art. 226, more particularly when the Union of India raised a dispute with respect to the relevant factual situation. The notices issued to the Respondent prio....