BAJRANG GOPILAL GAJABIversusM.N. BALKUNDRI & ORS.

                                                                                   A

                        BAJRANG GOPILAL GAJABI
                                   v.
                         M.N. BALKUNDRI & ORS.
                                                                                   B
                                  JULY 15, 1986


I
-\
            [V. BALAKRISHNA ERADI AND G.L. OZA, JJ.]

           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 yam into cloth-Whether the
                                                                                   c
     appellant or the powerloom owners "manufacturers"' of the cloth sold
     by ihe appellant for exigibility to Central Excise Duty.

            While dismissing, by its order dated 8-4-71, the writ petition filed
     by the appellant challenging the imdings of the appellate and revisional      D
     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      E
     fitness to appeal under Article 133(l)(a) against the said judgment.

           Dismissing the appeal, the Court,

           HELD: I. The books of accounts produced by the appellant be-
     fore the excise authorities contained clear evidence of the fact that the     F
     appellant himself was the owner of the yarn alleged to have been sold by
     Tejpal to the powerloom owners and that the appellant got hack that
     very· yarn in the shape of cloth after it was woven into cloth. Conse-
     quently the appellant himself was the manufacturer of the cloth in
     question and liable to excise duty in respect of the cloth so got manu-
     factured in the powerlooms of private owners. I182G-H; 1830 I                 G

           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. 148of1967.                                           H
    182                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [1986) 3 S.C.R.

A        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.
B
          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

          BALAKRISHNA ERADI, J, We find no merit at all in this ap-
    peal 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
                                                                                I
                                                                                /
    Article 133(1)(a) of the Constitution of India against the judgment of
c   the High Court dated April 8, 1971 dismissing the Special Civil Appli-
    cation 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.
D   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
E   purchased by him from the owners of those powerlooms. The Assis-
    tant 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 power-
                                                                                \

                                                                                •
    loom owners for and on behalf of the appellant himself and that the
F   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
G   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
H   sold by Tejpal to the powerloom owners and that the appellant got
                      l;\.G. GAJABI v. M.N. BALKUNDRI [ERADI, J.]          183

      back. that very yarn in the shape of cloth after it was woven into cloth.   A
      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        B
             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."
                                                                                  c
            We see no scope at all for interference with the aforesaid conclu-
      sion of fact reached by the High Court. The consequential position
"r-   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
                                                                                  D
      powerlooms.

             The appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed with costs.


      S.R.                                                   Appeal dismissed.




/