1989 Supreme(Cal) 267
High Court Of Calcutta
Susanta Chatterji
ANGLO-INDIA JUTE MILLS CO.LTD. - Appellant
Versus
COLLECTOR OF C.EX. - Respondent
C. R. 3481 (W) Of 1982
Decided On : 05/18/1989
A.N.MUKHERJEE, N.MITRA, R.N.BAJORIA, R.N.DAS, S.K.BAGARIA
A customer cannot be treated as a manufacturer merely because he has supplied raw materials to the actual manufacturer.
Headnote:
CENTRAL EXCISE - MANUFACTURER - DEFINITION - PETITIONER SUPPLIED RAW MATERIALS TO OTHER PARTIES AND GOT FINISHED GOODS MANUFACTURED OUT OF THE SAID RAW MATERIALS ON THEIR BEHALF - PETITIONER COMPANY CANNOT BE REGARDED AS THE MANUFACTURER OF THE SAID FILMS MANUFACTURED BY THE SAID FIRMS AT THEIR RESPECTIVE FACTORIES - PETITIONER COMPANY IS NOT A JOB WORKER AND OTHER MANUFACTURERS WHO MANUFACTURE THE ITEMS ARE NOT EXCLUSIVELY ON ACCOUNT OF THE PETITIONER - PETITIONER IS NOT A MANUFACTURER WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF SECTION 2(F) OF THE CENTRAL EXCISES AND SALT ACT, 1944.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner company, Anglo-India Jute Mills Co. Ltd., manufactures and deals in jute products, including laminated jute bags. During the manufacturing process, bitumen is picked up by the cloth, and polythene films are pasted on the bituminous side of the cloth. The petitioner supplied raw materials to various manufacturers who used them to manufacture polythene films. The Central Excise authorities issued a notice to the petitioner, alleging that it had manufactured and cleared polythene films without paying Central Excise duty and without obtaining a license. The petitioner challenged the notice, arguing that it was not the manufacturer of the films and that the notice was barred by limitation.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner company was not a manufacturer within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. It found that the petitioner was not a job worker and that the other manufacturers who manufactured the films were not exclusively on account of the petitioner. The court also held that the notice issued to the petitioner was not barred by limitation.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner company is a manufacturer within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944? 2. Whether the notice issued to the petitioner is barred by limitation?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the petitioner company was not a manufacturer within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, because it was not a job worker and the other manufacturers who manufactured the films were not exclusively on account of the petitioner. 2. The court held that the notice issued to the petitioner was not barred by limitation because the petitioner had not disclosed the fact of manufacturing the polythene films.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition and vacated all interim orders. It granted a stay of operation of the order for a period of two weeks after the Summer Holidays.
( 1 ) THE present Rule was issued at the instance of the writ petitioner Anglo-India Jute Mills Co. Ltd. , praying, inter alia, for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to withdraw, cancel and/or rescind the notice to show cause dated 16-3-1982 and all proceedings relating thereto and not to levy and/or demand any Central Excise duty from the petitioner on the making of polythene films by the manufacturers out of granules supplied by the petitioner and for other consequential reliefs by way of retaining the respondents from giving any effect to and/or taking step whatsoever pursuant thereto and/or in furtherance of the said notice to show cause and the proceeding relating thereto and/or from levying and/or demanding any duty from the petitioner.
( 2 ) IT is stated that the petitioner company carries on business of manufacturing and dealing in jute products. It is further stated that one of the items of jute manufactures manufactured by the petitioner at its factory is "laminated jute bags". During the process of manufacture of the said laminated jute bags some bitumen is picked up by the cloth and thereafter the cloth is passed through another roller under pressure and polythene films is pasted on the bituminous side of the cloth. The laminated cloth is then cut to sizes as per- the buyer's specifications and sewn into bags. According to the petitioner company various manufacturers who used to manufacture and/or are manufacturing polythene films out of, inter alia, the granules supplied by the petitioner are small manufacturers and the petitioner has been given to understand by them that they are entitled to the various exemptions granted under the various provisions of law to small-scale units. In or about March 1982 the petitioner was allegedly surprised to receive a purported notice to show cause as if the petitioner had manufactured and cleared a quantity of 436776. 300 kgs. of polythene films falling under Item No. 15a of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 without payment of Central Excise duty leviable thereon and without observance of Central Excise formalities and without obtaining any Central Excise Licence. It was further alleged that the petitioner supplied raw materials to the various parties and got the finished polythene films manufactured out of such materials on payment of job charges and thus petitioner engaged itself in the manufacture of the said goods within the meaning of Section 2 (f) of the said Act. By the said notice the respondent No. 1, the Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta, required the petitioner to show cause as to why Central Excise duty should not be demanded from and paid by the petitioner under Rule 9 (2) of the said Rules read with Section 11a of the said Act and as to why the penalty should not be imposed upon the petitioner under Rule 173q of the said Rules. The petitioner, however, replied to the show, cause notice, stating inter alia, that the polythene films were manufactured by the manufacturers and that the petitioner company was not and could not be regarded as the manufacturers thereof. It was further stated that the responsibility of procuring the materials required for making the films other than granules was entirely of the manufacturers and the petitioner was not in any way concerned with the same. There was no control or supervision of any nature whatsoever by the petitioner company on the manufacturing activities of the other manufacturers. The aforesaid manufacturers carried on the manufacturing activities on their own machinery and with their own employees and that the employees of the manufacturers were not connected with the petitioner in any way and they worked under the control and supevision of the said manufacturers. Elaborating in details the petitioner company asserted that in any event the petitioner company cannot be regarded as the manufacturers in respect of the said manufacturing activitie