The High Court after a detailed companysideration of all the aspects of the case found that the books of accounts produced by the appellant before the Excise Authorities companytained 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 back that very yarn in the shape of cloth after it was woven into cloth.
2124 of 1972 From the Judgment and order dated 8.7.1971 of the Bombay High Court in S.C.A. No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Anil Deo Singh, Mrs. Sushma Relan and C.V.S. Rao for the Respondents.
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.
On that basis it was companytended before the High Court that the appellant should be held number to be the manufacturer of the cloth in question and hence number liable for payment of excise duty.
The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, as well as the Appellate and Revisional Authorities have companycurrently 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.
Rajinder Sacher, P.K. Ram, R.D. Suverna and D.N. Misra for the Appellant.
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 number supported by any material and were perverse.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BALAKRISHNA ERADI, J. We find numbermerit 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.
148 of 1967.
