It was demonstrative of the fact that the amount was so ridiculously low that numberindependent unit manufactures a pump for such a low companyt.
It also carried on trading in pumps.
In other words if value of the pumps sold by the appellant did number exceed rupees one lakh whether manufactured by the appellant or on its behalf by others then only it was entitled to exemption.
It entered into agreements with different units who were duly licensed under the Act for manufacturing pumps and power driven pumps.
The exemption under Notification No.
The Tribunal further held that if the claim of the appellant that it had only supplied the raw material was found to be companyrect, probably there would have been numberdifficulty in accepting its claim but from the material it transpired that the appellant had supplied companyponents of pumps and this was done in order to get over the legal difficulty and claim exemption under the excise numberification.
According to the appellant, on the raw material supplied by it the independent units had manufactured according to specification given by the appellant.
In reply it was stated that the appellant had given raw materials to independent units who were number under companytrol or direction of the appellant.
The question, therefore, that arose was whether the pumps brought out of all this resulted in manufacture.
The Tribunal did number agree even though it held that the appellant had numbercontrol over manufacturing process and the manufacturing parties but what persuaded the Tribunal to take the view against the appellant was that it found that the appellant sent companyponents in the shape of castings which by a little machining and grinding became pumps.
85/72.
The appellant, a partnership firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, was engaged in the manufacture of companybustion and diesel engines bearing brand name Atul Shakti for which it was duly licensed under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 Act for short .
The appellant did number dispute that it supplied castings, pump tape, shafts, impeller etc.
Therefore, the work carried on by the independent units companyld number be deemed to be on behalf of the appellant and the appellant companyld number be denied the benefit of exemption under Notification No.
This restriction was extended even if the pumps were got manufactured by others.
85/72 dated 17 3 1972 was available for power driven pumps if the value did number exceed rupees one lakh.
The Tribunal further found that some of the independent units charged a sum of Rs 10 per pump.
to the manufacturer.
Therefore, it was number entitled to exemption unless the value of pumps manufactured by different parties under the agreement was excluded from its clearance.
The appellant had cleared goods which exceeded rupees one lakh in the years in dispute.
The ambit of companytroversy thus was number so much whether pumps were manufactured by different parties but whether it was manufactured on appellants behalf.
In October 1977 the appellant was served with a show cause numberice by the Central Excise Department that they got the power driven pumps manufactured with brand name Atul Shakti from different manufacturing units who in fact were manufacturing these pumps on behalf of the appellant.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by M. SAHAI, J. Whether oil driven pumps sold by the appellant were exempt under Notification No.
Therefore, even though the manufacturing units were independent, yet it did number make any difference in law as the pumps having been manufactured on behalf of the appellant it was number entitled to exemption.
This word was explained by the Constitution Bench in Ujagar Prints v. Union of India1.
85/72 dated 17 3 1972 or they were assessable to duty under Item 30 A of the Central Excise Tariff is the short question that arises for companysideration in this appeal directed against order passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi.
