Bajrang Gopilal Gajabi Vs. M.N.
Balkundri & Ors [1986] INSC 129 (15 July 1986)
ERADI, V. BALAKRISHNA (J) ERADI, V.
BALAKRISHNA (J) OZA, G.L. (J)
CITATION: 1986 AIR 1752 1986 SCR (3) 181 1986
SCC (3) 424 JT 1986 242 1986 SCALE (2)72
ACT:
Central Excise, exigibility to-Yarn supplied
by an agent for and on behalf of the appellant to private powerloom owners who
were paid only labour charges for weaving the yarn into cloth-Wether the
appellant or the powerloom owners "manufacturers" of the cloth sold
by the appellant for exigibility to Central Excise Duty.
HEADNOTE:
While dismissing, by its order dated 8-4-71,
the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the findings of the
appellate and revisional orders passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay
and the Government of India respectively holding that the appellant had been
rightly assessed and called upon to pay excise duty in respect of cloth
manufactured in some powerlooms and purported to have been purchased by him
from the owners of those powerlooms, the Bombay High Court, by its order dated
12th January, 1972 granted certificate of fitness to appeal under Article
133(1)(a) against the said judgment.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court, ^
HELD: 1. The books of accounts produced by
the appellant before the excise authorities contained clear evidence of the
fact that the appellant himself was the owner of the yarn alleged to have been
sold by Tejpal to the powerloom owners and that the appellant got back that
very yarn in the shape of cloth after it was woven into cloth.
Consequently the appellant himself was the
manufacturer of the cloth in question and liable to excise duty in respect of
the cloth so got manufactured in the powerlooms of private owners. [182G-H;
183D]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal
No. 2124 of 1972 From the Judgment and order dated 8.7.1971 of the Bombay High
Court in S.C.A. No. 148 of 1967.
182 Rajinder Sacher, P.K. Ram, R.D. Suverna
and D.N. Misra for the Appellant.
Anil Deo Singh, Mrs. Sushma Relan and C.V.S.
Rao for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
BALAKRISHNA ERADI, J. We find no merit at all in this appeal which has been
filed on the strength of a certificate granted by the High Court of Bombay by
its order dated January 12, 1972 under Article 133(1)(a) of the Constitution of
India against the judgment of the High Court dated April 8, 1971 dismissing the
Special Civil Application No. 148 of 1967 filed by the appellant.
The appellant is the sole proprietor of the
Navbharat Trading Company, carrying on business in cloth at Ichalkaranji in
Kolhapur. The challenge raised by him in the Writ Petition filed in the High
Court was against the appellate and revisional orders passed by the Collector
of Central Excise, Bombay and the Government of India respectively holding that
the appellant had been rightly assessed and called upon to pay excise duty
amounting to Rs.53,190 in respect of cloth manufactured in some powerlooms and
purported to have been purchased by him from the owners of those powerlooms.
The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, as well as the Appellate and
Revisional Authorities have concurrently found that yarn had been supplied to
the powerlooms by one Tejpal for and on behalf of the appellant, that the cloth
in question was manufactured by the powerloom owners for and on behalf of the
appellant himself and that the powerloom owners received only an amount equal
to the labour charges. Though, these were findings on pure question of fact,
they were challenged by the appellant before the High Court on the ground that
they were not supported by any material and were perverse.
On that basis it was contended before the
High Court that the appellant should be held not to be the manufacturer of the
cloth in question and hence not liable for payment of excise duty.
The High Court after a detailed consideration
of all the aspects of the case found that the books of accounts produced by the
appellant before the Excise Authorities contained clear evidence of the fact
that the appellant himself was the owner of the yearn alleged to have been sold
by Tejpal to the powerloom owners and that the appellant got 183 back that very
yarn in the shape of cloth after it was woven into cloth. After referring to
the details of the evidence, the High Court observed:
"These particulars and details go to
show that there was clear and cogent evidence on the record of the department
to enable the assessing authorities to make inferential findings that the
transactions of alleged sale of yarn by Tejpal to the powerloom owners and the
transactions of alleged purchase of cloth by the petitioner from the powerloom
owners were camouflage for the petitioner to get powerloom cloth manufactured
by himself by employing powerlooms of the powerloom owners." We see no
scope at all for interference with the aforesaid conclusion of fact reached by
the High Court. The consequential position that emerges is that the appellant
himself was the manufacturer of the cloth in question and he must be held to
have been rightly assessed to excise duty in respect of the cloth so got
manufactured in the powerlooms.
The appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed
with costs.
S.R. Appeal dismissed.
Back
