M/S. Indian Rayon And Indus. Ltd. vs Cce, Calcutta - Iv on 16 May, 2001
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.