1997 (1) TMI 87

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....had at any time during the calendar year proceeding the date of application, employed, more than five workers." The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant was that paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Tribunal's judgment would show that one extra workman doing packing work was noticed on 23-6-1978, 26-6-1978, 14-1-1980 and 21-3-1981 and for this casual presence the benefit has been denied to the appellant. Our attention was also drawn to the Collector's order wherein it is stated that he was satisfied that on 23-6-1978 and 26-6-1978 six workers were engaged and on 14-1-1980 also six workers were engaged. Consequently, the benefit to the assessee was restricted to 1978-79 since during that year it was not shown that more than five workers....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ars 1979-80 and 1980-81 and yet the Tribunal while disposing of his appeal denied him the benefit for the year 1978-79. It appears that this is a mistake apparent on the face of the record. Instead of mentioning the years 1979-80 and 1980-81 the Tribunal has, in paragraph 16 of the judgment, mentioned the years 1978-79 and 1979-80. This mistake needs to be corrected. We, therefore, correct the same and hold that the benefit granted for the year 1978-79 was not the subject matter of the appeal which the Tribunal disposed of on 30th of June, 1986. To that extent, the order of the Tribunal will have to be corrected and modified. 3.It may now be mentioned that for the year 1978-79 since the Collector had granted the benefit the Revenue carrie....