AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Om Prakash, J.—This is an application u/s 35(g)(4) of Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 raising as many as ten questions of law. It appears unnecessary to reproduce them. The applicant manufactured motor trailor falling under item No. 34 of the first schedule to the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. It was eligible to duty at 6% ad valorem under Notification issued by Excise Department unless it was produced in a factory which employed more than five workers. The applicant did not pay any duty as according to it employed only five workers. In 1977 show-cause notice was issued as from joint statement recorded of workers it was clear that nine persons worked in applicant''s factory. The applicant did not appear but in the written reply sent it disputed the correctness that more than five persons worked on basis of attendance register etc. maintained under labour Act and absence of proprietor at time of recording of statement. The Collector, however, did not accept, these as the statement of workers could not be successfully challenged.
The question whether five or more than five persons worked is a question of fact. In recording this finding the tribunal relied on statement of workers rather than entries in attendance register. The finding of fact recorded on these material cannot give rise to a question of law. Nor can any question of law arise on inference drawn from statement of workers.
In the circumstances the application fails and is rejected.