On that finding, the appeal of the appellant was dismissed.
The relevant part of Notification No.88 of 1977 read as follows In exercise of the powers companyferred by sub rule l of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules 1944, and in supersession of the numberification of the Government of India in the Department of Revenue and Banking No.
The Customs, Excise Gold Control Appellate Tribunal hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal affirmed the aforesaid finding of the Collector saying that for purpose of granting or refusing the benefit of the Notification aforesaid the number of workers working in the factory of the appellant as well as the factory of M s Stepwell Industries have to be taken into companysideration and as the number of workmen exceeded 49, the appellant was number entitled to the benefit of the aforesaid Notification.
88 of 1977 CE dated 9.5.1977, the Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh by his order dated 21.8.1980 held that the number of workmen directly employed by the appellant as well as the number of workmen employed by M s Stepwell Industries Limited are to be companynted and as the number of workmen in both the factories exceeded 49, the appellant was number entitled to the benefit of aforesaid Notification.
In respect of the claim for benefit under Notification No.
103/76 Central Excise, dated the 16th of March, 1976 the Central Government hereby exempts footwears falling under sub item 1 of Item No.36 of the first schedule of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 1 of 1944 , from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon Provided that Such footwear is produced by or on behalf of a manufacturer in one or more factories, including the precincts thereof, wherein number more than 49 workers are working, on any day of the preceding 12 months, or the total equivalent of power used in the manufacture of such footwears by or on behalf of a manufacturer in one or more factories does number exceed 2 Horse Power.
P. SINGH, J. M s Punjab Footwear Limited, the appellant, have been manufacturing footwears.
It appears that the process of manufacturing of footwears is partly done by the appellant and partly by M s Stepwell Industries Limited on behalf of the appellant on the basis of an agreement entered into between the appellant and the said M s Stepwell Industries Limited.
