BAJRANG GOPILAL GAJABI versus M.N. BALKUNDRI & ORS.

Citation: [1986] 3 S.C.R. 181 · Decided: 15-07-1986 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V. BALAKRISHNA ERADI · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

I 
-\ 
BAJRANG GOPILAL GAJABI 
v. 
M.N. BALKUNDRI & ORS. 
JULY 15, 1986 
[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 
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 
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 
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-
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
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. I 182G-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 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
182 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1986) 3 S.C.R. 
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. 
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 
Article 133(1)(a) of the Constitution of India against the judgment of 
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. 
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. 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 
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 
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 
I 
/ 
\ •
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. 
After referring to the details of the evidence, the High Court 
observed: 
"These particulars and details go to show that there was
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.