Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Textile Corporation Of Marathwada Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Customs And Central ... on 4 September, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2002(145)ELT385(TRI-MUMBAI)
JUDGMENT Gowri Shankar, Member (T)
1. The appellant has facilities in its factory for carrying out bleaching, dying., printing and mercerising of textile fabrics. It subjects the fabrics that it buys to any one or more of its processes, pays duty at one time and clears them. Notice issued to it alleged that it was required it to pay duty each time the fabric was subjected to one process. Thus, in the case of fabrics which were subjected to bleaching and dying, duty was required by the appellant to be paid on the bleached fabrics, once again upon that fabric when it was dyed, and a third time when that dyed fabric was subjected to printing. Penalty was also proposed. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed the proposal in the notice. His order having been confirmed by the Commissioner (appeals), the manufacturer is before us.
2. Note 3 to Chapter 52, note 4 to chapter 54 and note 4 to chapter 55 of the Tariff provide that, in relation to the fabrics specified in the notes, "bleaching, mercerising, dyeing, printing, water-proofing, shrink-proofing, organdie processing or any other process or any one or more of these processes" shall amount to manufacture. It is based on this note that duty is to be paid separately on each time that the fabric is subjected to one process. This view, however, ignores the words "any one or more of these processes" contained in that note. If it were the intention to demand duty separately on each process, these words would not have been employed According to us in the manner in which the notes are worded, if the fabric is subjected to one process, it amounts to manufacture. If however, it is subjected to more than one process in the hands of the same manufacturer, the totality of the processes involved amounts to manufacture. In that situation it would not be correct to say each of these processes amounts to manufacture. Such an interpretation would render redundant the phrase "any one or more of these processes" that we have isolated earlier. This is in fact the conclusion that the Tribunal has come to in Indian Rayon and Industries Ltd. vs. CCE, Calcutta 200 (37) RLT 154, although for a different reason, that the process would be revenue neutral.
3. In the light of the reasoning that we have advanced above, we do not consider it necessary to deal with the other arguments that the counsel for the appellant has made.
4. Appeal allowed. Impugned order set aside.