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

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

Since the appellant provided the yarn and received the finished cloth, paying only labour charges to powerloom owners, he is the manufacturer liable to excise duty for the cloth so manufactured.

Parties
Appellant: Bajrangi Gopilal Gajabi; Respondents: M.N. Balkundri & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
15 July 1986
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Decision Under Article 133(1)(a) of the Constitution
Outcome
appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Excise Duty Liability, Manufacturer Definition Under Central Excise, Camouflage Transactions
Central Excise Law Taxation Excise Duty Liability Manufacturer Definition Under Central Excise Camouflage Transactions

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bajrangi Gopilal Gajabi

Appellant

M.N. Balkundri & Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Decision Under Article 133(1)(a) of the Constitution

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant or powerloom owners are manufacturers of cloth for the purpose of Central Excise duty

Ratio Decidendi

Since the appellant provided the yarn and received the finished cloth, paying only labour charges to powerloom owners, he is the manufacturer liable to excise duty for the cloth so manufactured.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Appellant to pay costs