AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A Writ Petition filed by Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd. (TELCO) and Mr. H. Rohinesh, Senior Deputy General (Law) was admitted by Their Lordships the Hon''ble Mr. Chief Justice M.B. Shah and Hon''ble Mr. Justice Khandeparkar against the letters and directions issued by Asstt. Commissioner of Central Excise, Div. ''H'' Worli, Bombay directing TELCO to take Central Excise Registration in respect of wooden furniture manufactured in their office for office purpose and directing them to pay Excise Duty before the goods are cleared for the place of manufacture.
TELCO carries on business of manufacturing motor vehicles. They were desirous of renovating their office at Worli and Bombay House and for that purpose they engaged Architects to design the interiors as also various furniture items to be made. The said Architects engaged independent carpenter, contractors and also polishing contractors, who independently employ their own labourers. TELCO does not either produce the raw materials or supervise the making of their furniture or their polishing. TELCO do not have control over the Contractors of the men employed by them. The said carpenters are basically contractors taken as job workers and make furniture on job work basis. The carpenters are not employed by TELCO. TELCO pay the said carpenters their charges as a per piece basis. The contractors supervise and control their own skilled and unskilled labourers which they have employed.
TELCO had certain empty premises at Lyod Centre situated at Prabhadevi, Bombay. TELCO placed an order with the architects who in turn placed order with independent contractors to make the various items of furniture in these premises.
On 11th March, 1998, the Supdt. Preventive of Central Excise, issued a Summons to Mr. H. Rohinesh, Senior Officer of TELCO directing him to give evidences and produce certain documents when all the facts and particulars were furnished to the Excise Department.
Despite the aforesaid facts the Central Excise Dept. falsely alleged that TELCO were engaged in the manufacture of wooden furniture and that the same could only be cleared after following Central Excise Procedure. The Asstt. Commissioner by communication dated 26th March, 1998 and 28th April, 1998 alleged that TELCO were engaged in the manufacture of wooden furniture which were excisable commodities and therefore the same could only be cleared after following Excise procedures and further directed TELCO to obtain Excise Registration and to pay appropriated Excise Duty on the same before clearance from the premises where they are made.
Against the aforesaid communications the Petitioners filed Writ Petition against Union of India and Excise Authorities, challenging the same. TELCO submitted that communications are ex facie, illegal, without jurisdiction and without authority of law. TELCO submitted that they cannot be considered as manufacturers of furniture u/s 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944. They further contended that merely because TELCO have given a contract for certain carpentry work or because TELCO has temporarily permitted the contractors, and also the job workers to use their premises TELCO are not manufacturers of furniture and they do not require registration as manufacturers of furniture under Central Excise Act, 1944.
Their Lordships the Hon''ble Mr. Chief Justice M.B. Shah and Hon''ble Mr. Justice Khandeparkar admitted the Petition issued Rule and stayed pending final hearing of the Writ Petition the communication dated 26th March, 1998 and 28th April, 1998 issued by Asstt. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai IV, Div. ''H'', Madhu Industrial Estate, Worli, Bombay which directed TELCO to get themselves registered under Central Excise Act, 1944 and pay excise duty on wooden furniture.