TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1996 (5) TMI 84
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ehold ladies outside the factory of the respondents. 3.Briefly the facts are as follows : During the year 1980-81 the respondents were manufacturers of goods falling under erstwhile Tariff Item 14F of the Central Excise Tariff under a Central Excise Licence obtained for the purpose. The total clearances of such goods during the said year amounted to Rs. 14,88,268.00. In addition they were also manufacturing goods falling under Tariff Item 68 in their own factory and were availing of the exemption from duty and licensing control under Notification No. 105/80-C.E., dated 19-6-1980. The value of such goods during the relevant year manufactured amounted to Rs. 3,21,605.00. Apart from the above two items, respondents were getting agarbatti, am....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....order of the Assistant Collector was taken up for review by the Collector of Central Excise, Baroda under Section 35A of the Central Excises and Salt Act and a notice dated 5-8-1982 proposing to set aside the Assistant Collector Order was given. After considering the reply to the Show Cause Notice, the Collector set aside the order of the Assistant Collector holding inter alia that the total clearances of goods falling under Item 14F and the goods falling under Tarrif Item 68 including those manufactured from outside the factory exceeded Rs. 20 lakhs and consequently the respondents were not entitled to exemption from duty in respect of first clearance of Rs. 7.5 lakhs of the goods falling under Tariff Item 14F during the year 198l-82. Aggr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e manufacturers. It is further emphasized that those goods did not go to the factory premises of the respondents. It is contended by the learned counsel that the manufacturers in this case are undoubtedly the house-hold ladies, notwithstanding the fact that raw-materials for manufacture of those goods were supplied by the respondents. In the facts and the circumstances of the case, according to the learned counsel for the respondents, by no stretch of imagination the respondents could be the manufacturers of goods manufactured by house-hold ladies as mentioned above. He also contended that the error committed by the Collector of Customs was that he proceeded on the assumption that the house-hold ladies manufactured the goods as 'hired labou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the respondents are not the manufacturers of agarbati, amlapodi, dhup etc.. manufactured by various cottage type manufacturers on job work basis. On the facts narrated above, we do not think that the assumption of the Collector that the respondents got the goods in question manufactured by `hired labourers' can be sustained. On the other hand we find, on the facts, the house-hold ladies are the manufacturers of the goods in question and the liability to excise duty will be attracted on their manufacture of the goods and therefore, it cannot be clubbed with the goods manufactured in the factory premises of the respondents to deny the exemption claimed . 8.In Empire Industries (supra) this Court held : "The taxable event for Central Excis....