Full Judgment Text
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