http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: BAJRANG GOPILAL GAJABI

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: M.N. BALKUNDRI & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT15/07/1986

BENCH: ERADI, V. BALAKRISHNA (J) BENCH: 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]

JUDGMENT:      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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

    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.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

S.R.                                       Appeal dismissed. 184