JUDGMENT AND ORDER : N. Chaudhury, J. This appeal under Section 82 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (herein after referred to as 'the ESI Act') has been preferred by management of M/s Speed Sale Private Limited. By that judgment the Employees Insurance Court (herein after referred to as 'the EI Court') dismissed the application of the petitioner filed under Section 75 of the ESI Act. 2. M/s Speed Sale Private Ltd. claiming to be a company registered under Companies Act, 1956 filed an application under Section 75 of the ESI Act before the EI Court on 03.10.2001 stating that the Assistant Regional Director of the respondent No.1 issued a letter to it on 31.08.2001 demanding contribution of a sum of Rs.22,308/- for the period from October, 2000 to March, 2001 for 16 months per employee. It is stated in the application that Inspector of the ESI Corporation by letter dated 29.05.2001 intimated the petitioner that under Section 45 of the ESI Act, there shall be an inspection on 07.06.2001 and asked the petitioner to keep all the records ready including the master roll wages register, cash books, vouchers, inspection book, copies of challans etc. Accordingly, there was an inspection on 07.06.2001 but the petitioner's Director being absent on that day the relevant records could not be produced. The Inspection, therefore, left asking the petitioner to keep the records ready on 18.06.2001 but ultimately, he did not visit the shop on that date. The petitioner thereafter received letter dated 31.08.2001 on 15.09.2001 as referred to above. According to the petitioner, it has only 11 numbers of employees in the establishment up to October 1998, 12 numbers of employees from November, 1998 to March, 2000, 11 numbers of employees from April, 2000 to June 2000, 12 numbers of employees for the month of July 2000 and 13/14 employees for the period of August 2000 to September, 2001. The petitioner's company neither did it engage 20 or more employees in their establishment for wages from the date of incorporation till date nor is it aided by power. So, it is not a factory within the meaning of Section 48 of the ESI Act and so, notice served on it was not a valid one. The petitioner's company neither did it engage 20 or more employees in their establishment for wages from the date of incorporation till date nor is it aided by power. So, it is not a factory within the meaning of Section 48 of the ESI Act and so, notice served on it was not a valid one. According to the petitioner, the Labour Inspector of the Government of Assam has visited his establishment and it was found that there were 12 number of employees engaged in the establishment for the month of June 1998 to March, 2000. With these averments of facts the petitioner prayed that the impugned notice dated 31.08.2001 annexed as Annexure-1 to that application should be quashed holding that the petitioner's establishment is not covered by the provision of the ESI Act. Upon receipt of this application, learned EI Court registered ESI Case No. 3 of 2002 and issued notice to the respondent corporation who appeared and submitted written statement. 3. In Paragraph-4 of the written statement the respondents pleaded that in course of inspection held on 04.02.2000 and 14.03.2000 petitioner was found using power in servicing LML bikes and employing more coverable number of employees in their establishment. The petitioner is an authorised dealer of LML products and other electrical appliances but it failed to comply with the requests made by the respondents vide coverage letter No.43-3297-67 dated 16.06.2000. Denying the averments of facts made in the application, the respondents further stated in Paragraph-6 of the written statement that the establishment is a factory within the meaning of Section 2(12) of the ESI Act and that the application, made on the basis of notice dated 31.08.2001, was made on ad-hoc basis as the petitioner failed to produce any record for inspection. The petitioner refused to submit declaration forms for insuring their employees and avoided contributions in the pretext of self induced non-insurance of employees which are not acceptable. With these averments, the respondents prayed that the petition be dismissed with compensatory cost of Rs.5,000/- only. 4. Even after submission of such rival contention of the parties, it appears on records that the learned court did not frame any issue or point for determination and straight way put the parties to lead their respective evidence. The petitioner examined as many as 3 (three) witnesses including himself and adduced 29 documents. 4. Even after submission of such rival contention of the parties, it appears on records that the learned court did not frame any issue or point for determination and straight way put the parties to lead their respective evidence. The petitioner examined as many as 3 (three) witnesses including himself and adduced 29 documents. Respondents on the other hand examined 1 (one) witness and exhibited 7 documents as Exhibits-A to G. Considering the depositions and the documents led by the parties and their respective pleadings, the learned trial court passed the impugned judgment and order on 24.03.2006 holding that the establishment used to repair the scooters using power driven servicing machines. The witness No.1 of the company in his cross-examination admitted that in Exhibit-10 there were entries against the receipts and payments towards service charges for painting, denting etc but did not lead evidence to show that there repairing works were aided by power and was done through any other agencies. This being the position the learned EI Court was of the view that there were as many as 14 number of employees engaged in the establishment at the relevant point of time and that it was involved in the work of painting, denting and other repairing works with the aid of power. Accordingly, the application filed by the petitioner was found to be devoid of any merit and the same was dismissed by holding that there was a factory within the meaning of Section 2(12) of the ESI Act, 1948. It is this judgment which has been brought under challenge in the present appeal by the management. 5. This Court while admitting this appeal on 23.06.2006 did not frame any substantial question of law as required under Section 82(2) of the ESI Act, 1948 and so, now when the matter has been listed for hearing, learned counsel for both sides are heard to find out as to whether any substantial question of law does arise in the present case. 6. I have heard Mr. L.P. Sarma, learned counsel assisted by Mr. S. Chakraborty, for the appellant and Mr. K.K. Nandi, learned Standing Counsel ESI Corporation, assisted by Ms. T. Begum, for the respondents. 7. I have perused the respective pleadings and the evidence led by the parties. 8. At the threshold Mr. 6. I have heard Mr. L.P. Sarma, learned counsel assisted by Mr. S. Chakraborty, for the appellant and Mr. K.K. Nandi, learned Standing Counsel ESI Corporation, assisted by Ms. T. Begum, for the respondents. 7. I have perused the respective pleadings and the evidence led by the parties. 8. At the threshold Mr. L.P. Sarma, learned counsel for the appellant would argue that the appellant/petitioner has all along been disputing as to applicability of the provision of the ESI Act, 1948 on the establishment of the petitioner not only on the ground that it is not a factory within the meaning of Section 2(12) of the Act but also on the ground that the procedure described under Section 44 and 45 of the ESI Act, 1984, have not been complied with in the present case by the respondents. He has called attention of the Court to Exhibit-2 notice dated 31.08.2001 which he has challenged in the application under Section 75 of the ESI Act. He submitted that the Corporation assessed contribution @ Rs.22,308/- each of the 15 employees by presuming their salaries and also imposed penalty @ 6.5% of interest on the said amount without affording any opportunity of hearing. Referring to the provision of Section 45A of the Act, the learned counsel would further argue that before making such assessment the respondents' Corporation is duty bound to afford reasonable opportunity of hearing to the establishment. This not having been done the whole procedure has been vitiated and that should be the substantial question of law involved in this case. 9. Per contra, Mr. K.K. Nandi, learned Standing Counsel of the ESI Corporation would argue that the correctness as to assessment under Section 45 of the ESI Act could have been challenged by the appellant/petitioner if they complied with the same notice. He called attention of the Court to the penalty made in paragraphs of impugned notice dated 31.08.2001 to show that by the impugned notice the establishment was only directed to show cause as to why assessment should not be made as proposed in the notice and it was not a final assessment at all. Even in the written statement it was stated in Paragraph-6 that the calculation was made on ad hoc basis as the petitioner had failed to produce records in course of inspection. Even in the written statement it was stated in Paragraph-6 that the calculation was made on ad hoc basis as the petitioner had failed to produce records in course of inspection. According to the learned counsel, the requirement of inspection is only to ascertain as to whether the establishment is covered by the provision of the Act. This means that if an establishment is a factory within the meaning of Section 2(12) then and then only the question of assessment would arise. In the case in hand, the respondents Corporation served notice on the establishment to make records available on the fixed day and on that date an inspection was made by an Inspector of the ESI Corporation. The establishment denied to produce the records on that day and it is under such circumstances an assessment on ad hoc basis was made by the Inspector depending upon the information available. However, to comply with the requirements of proviso to Section 45 A of the Act, the establishment was given an opportunity to show cause as to why the proposed assessment should not be made absolute. The establishment did no avail the opportunity and hurried to Court challenging the notice itself. But in course of doing so, establishment itself has produced its own records to show that there were more than 10 employees engaged in the establishment at the relevant time, that the establishment is engaged in servicing LML scooters both by painting and denting works as well as otherwise and this is why in Exhibit-10 there are entries on this head both in the receipts as well as in the payments side. This is suggestive of the fact that establishment made expenditure in doing painting and denting works of LML scooters belonging to the customers and so, in the absence of any evidence in this regard that all these works were done by any other agencies, it is to be presumed that the establishment had done the repairing works. Calling attention of the Court in Exhibit - B available on record, the learned counsel would further argue that Exhibit-B is nothing but a document of the petitioner prepared on its own letterhead, wherein it is disclosed that the establishment is engaged, inter alia, on repairing works and servicing works as well. Calling attention of the Court in Exhibit - B available on record, the learned counsel would further argue that Exhibit-B is nothing but a document of the petitioner prepared on its own letterhead, wherein it is disclosed that the establishment is engaged, inter alia, on repairing works and servicing works as well. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, the establishment is not only a show-room of LML scooters but it is also a center of repairing and servicing vehicles. P.W.1 was confronted with this document in course of cross-examination when he admitted that the writing in Exhibit-B is his own handwriting and Exhibit-B is prepared in the letterhead of his establishment. This document has been admitted in evidence without there being any objection and under such circumstances, the feeble objection sought to be raised on behalf of the appellant as the admissibility of the document cannot be countenanced. This is because it is established law that if a document is exhibited without any objection its admissibility cannot be questioned at appellate stage. 10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this court has exhibited Exhibit-10, Exhibit-B and other documents available on record. Exhibit-2 is the notice dated 31.08.2001, whereby the appellant has been directed to show-cause as to why the proposed assessment should not be made final. A recital of the penalty made in paragraphs of this impugned notice is suggestive of the fact that it is not a final order and it was only a show-cause notice affording opportunity to the establishment to explain its liability and to show that the ad hoc assessment made by the respondents' corporation was erroneous. Exhibit-10 contains entries to the effect that books of accounts of the petitioner contains not only receipts but also payments towards repairing works including painting and denting of the vehicles. Now, the establishment having received amount form customers against servicing it only solidifies that establishment is not only a show-room but is also engaged in servicing works. Presence of payment entries against painting and denting shows that these services were rendered by the establishment. However, such servicing works may be done by hiring services from agencies but if that be the case of the petitioner/appellant, it ought to have led evidence to that effect. This not having been done it cannot be presumed that it was done through any other agencies. However, such servicing works may be done by hiring services from agencies but if that be the case of the petitioner/appellant, it ought to have led evidence to that effect. This not having been done it cannot be presumed that it was done through any other agencies. So, the learned trial court has not committed any error in holding that painting and denting works were done by the establishment by itself and not through any other agencies. In the absence of any other material to the contrary, this cannot be held to be perverse or based on no materials. Once it is held that the appellant establishment is aided by power in that event because of the admitted position that it had engaged more than 10 employees in the relevant time, it comes within the scope of Section 2(12) of the Act and thereby, it becomes an establishment covered by the ESI Act. The judgment passed by the learned trial court, therefore, is upheld. There is no substantial question of law involved in this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal cannot be admitted. It is hereby dismissed. 11. Send down the records. 12. No order as to costs.