KHADER KNITTING COMPANY Vs. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS matter which was a revision petition before the Government of India directed against the Order -in -Appeal No. 951/78 dated 17 -6 -1978 passed by the Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Madras, is now before us as an appeal having been received by transfer to the Tribunal under Section 35P of the Central Excises a id Salt Act, 1944, and is being taken up for disposal as such. It first came up before the Bench on 29th July, 1983.

(2.) SHRI K.K. Kapoor, Consultant appeared for the appellants whereas Department was represented by Shri Hem Prakash, JDR. It was observed that the only controversy raised before the lower authorities by the appellants, was as to entitlement to the benefit of exemption Notifications; being Notifications Nos. 54/75 -C.E., dated 1 -3 -1975 and No. 105/76 -C.E., dated 16 -3 -1976. Both these Notifications have reference to the number of workers employed in a factory during a particular period and in order to get the benefit thereof, the manufacturers had to establish that the number of workers employed with them did not exceed 49.

(3.) THE controversy related to the period covered by the assessment years 1975 -76 and 1976 -77 and it was confined to the question as to whether certain categories of persons employed in the appellant's unit could be treated as "workers" for the purpose of the aforesaid two Notifications. Whereas the appellants contended that the two despatchers, one carpenter and one cartman could not be deemed to be a worker so as to connect them with the manufacture of "excisable goods", the Department held otherwise, and finally by means of the impugned Order -in -Appeal passed on 17 -6 -1978, the learned Appellate Collector came to the finding that so far as the period 1975 -76 was concerned, the number of workers employed in the appellant's factory certainly exceeded 49 and to that extent the appeal was dismissed wholly relating to said period. However, so far as the period 1976 -77 was concerned, it was split up so as to hold that for the period April, 1976 to October, 1976, it was again clear that the number of workers employed exceeded 49 and so the appellants were held not entitled to exemption, but position in relation to the whole of the financial year April, 1976 to March, 1977 was held to be not beyond doubt, and it was thus directed that Superintendent will examine the question of eligibility of the appellants for exemption during the period November, 1976 to March, 1977 de novo, with reference to the workers actually employed during the related period.