2011 (2) TMI 180 - HC - Central Excise

Manufacture - Unprocessed grey pile fabrics - Processes of pile opening (if required), back coating, and pile cutting & polishing - Whether these three processes combined together come within the ambit of any other process as used in note 4 or not - The Tribunal has not recorded any finding in the case but has allowed the appeal merely on the decision given by Special bench of the Tribunal in Maharashtra Fur Fabrics Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, case - The impugned order of the Tribunal in the case is based upon the decision of Special bench in the Maharashtra-Fur case that was overruled by the Supreme Court in case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh v. Shital International, 2010 -TMI - 78218 - Supreme Court of India , (the Shital cases) - There is no justification in expressing opinion at this stage - It would be proper to send the reference back to the Tribunal to decide the appeal again after recording finding on the following two questions.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the processes undertaken by the Assessee amount to manufacturing, making them liable to pay excise duty under the Central Excise Act, 1944.
2. Interpretation of the definition of "manufacture" under Section 2(f) of the Act.
3. Application of Note 4 of Chapter 60 of the Tariff Act in determining manufacturing processes.
4. Relevance of previous judgments, including the Maharashtra Fur case and Shital cases, in deciding the current case.
5. Lack of specific findings by the authorities on the nature of the processes carried out by the Assessee.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The Assessee, a job worker, undertakes processes like back coating, shearing, and electrifying polish on unprocessed grey fabrics. The issue is whether these processes constitute manufacturing, leading to excise duty liability.
2. The definition of "manufacture" under Section 2(f) of the Act is inclusive, encompassing processes defined as manufacturing in the Tariff Act. The Tribunal examined if the processes carried out by the Assessee fall under this definition.
3. Note 4 of Chapter 60 of the Tariff Act lists processes like bleaching, dyeing, and printing as manufacturing. The question arises whether the processes of back coating, shearing, and electrifying polish undertaken by the Assessee qualify as "any other process" under this note.
4. Previous judgments, such as the Maharashtra Fur case and Shital cases, were considered for guidance. The Supreme Court overruled the Maharashtra Fur case, emphasizing that processes like back coating could amount to manufacturing. However, the applicability of these judgments to the current case was debated.
5. Authorities differed in their findings regarding the impact of the processes on the fabric. While the Tribunal relied on previous decisions, the lack of specific findings by the authorities in the current case necessitated a reevaluation. The High Court directed the Tribunal to reconsider the appeal, focusing on whether the processes align with those specified in Note 4 and if the end product differs significantly from the original fabric.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive understanding of the legal issues involved and the reasoning behind the High Court's decision to refer the case back to the Tribunal for further examination.