1. Since the above appeals arise out of a common order and a common question of law arises for consideration in all the appeals they are taken up together and disposed of by a single order. The above appeals have been filed in pursuance of the order of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.P. No. 9853/81 giving the appellants a right of filing the appeals within 4 weeks from the date of the order of the Writ Petition viz 4-11-1986. The appellants herein are small scale units manufacturing goods falling under Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. The appellants claimed benefit under Notification No. 176/77 , dated 13-6-1977 on the ground that the value of the Plant and Machinery installed in the respective industrial units of the appellants did not in each case exceed Rs. 10 lakhs as provided for in the notification and that the value of the goods cleared for home consumption from the industrial unit of the each of the appellants did not exceed Rs. 30 lakhs during the preceding financial year. It is not disputed before us that if the aforesaid conditions are satisfied the appellants would be entitled to the benefit in terms of the said notification totally exempting the goods. The only question that arises for consideration before us in the batch of appeals is whether the appellants can be said to be manufacturers within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (Act for short) so as to claim benefit under the notification referred to supra or whether the suppliers of raw materials hereinafter referred to as Customers on whose behalf and on whose account the appellants manufactured and cleared the goods falling under T.I. 68 can be said to be manufacturers within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Act.

2. Shri Tamizhmani, the learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants are independent manufactures and merely because they manufactured goods according to the specifications of the suppliers of the raw material the customers they would not be ceased to be manufacturers within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Act. The learned Counsel submitted that the issue is no longer res integra and is covered by number of judicial pronouncements. The learned counsel placed reliance on the Division Bench Ruling of the Madras High Court in the case of Paragaon Industries, Trichy and Ors. v. Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Trichy in W.P. No. 2185/77 and connected Writ Petitions decided on 6-1-1981 wherein the Division Bench of the Madras High Court has taken the view that the fact that the goods were manufactured on behalf of the customers would have no relevance to construe the notification referred to supra. The learned Counsel also placed reliance on the ruling of the Special Bench, CEGAT, New Delhi in the case of Mahavir Metal Industries, Bombay v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay reported in MANU/CE/0266/1986 : 1987(28) E.L.T. 85 (Tribunal) and also on another Special Bench ruling of CEGAT, New Delhi in the case of Techma Engineering Enterprise, Calcutta v. Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta reported in MANU/CE/0230/1986 : 1987(27) E.L.T. 460 (Tribunal).

3. The learned DR contended that inasmuch as the appellants manufactured and cleared the goods only on behalf of and on account of raw material suppliers who are the customers, the appellants cannot be said to be manufacturers within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Act and the learned DR placed reliance on the ratio of the ruling of the Special Bench of the CEGAT in the case of H. Guru Instruments (Pvt.) Ltd., Calcutta v. Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta reported in 1986(8) E.T.R. 665 and contended that the status of the appellants is no better than that of hired labour and it is not disputed that the appellants received only job charges for the goods manufactured by them. The learned DR therefore submitted that the appellants would not be entitled to the benefits of the notification in question as a small scale unit sinc