1987 (3) TMI 255 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Notification No. 179/72 and subsequent amendments regarding excise duty exemption for processed man-made fabrics.
2. Determination of whether the printing process conducted by the appellants qualifies as a process ordinarily conducted with the aid of machines.
3. Assessment of whether the equipment used by the appellants, such as the baby boiler, table, and stirrer, can be classified as machines for the printing process.
4. Examination of whether the appellants are entitled to the benefit of the excise duty exemption under the notification.

Analysis:

1. The case involved a partnership concern engaged in printing pure silk sarees that started experimental hand printing of viscose sarees without machine assistance. The dispute revolved around the applicability of excise duty under Notification No. 179/72 and subsequent amendments. The appellants argued they were not liable for additional duty as they did not use machines for printing.

2. The appellants contended that their manual printing process did not involve the use of machines, emphasizing that the stirring of colors with a mechanized stirrer did not constitute a manufacturing process requiring duty payment. They cited a circular and previous judgments to support their position, asserting their belief in compliance with the notification's restrictions.

3. The Revenue argued that the printing process involved machinery, including a boiler for drying and a table for fabric drying. The dispute centered on whether the equipment used by the appellants, like the baby boiler and stirrer, qualified as machines for the printing process, leading to the contravention of licensing requirements.

4. The Tribunal analyzed the notification's language, particularly the definition of "processed" involving processes ordinarily conducted with machines. It scrutinized the equipment used by the appellants, determining that the stirring of colors and fabric printing by hand did not align with machine-operated processes, entitling the appellants to the duty exemption.

5. The Tribunal clarified that the mere stirring of chemicals did not constitute a printing process requiring duty payment, emphasizing the absence of transformation of energy in the stirring activity. It concluded that the appellants' manual printing method did not fall under the notification's scope of machine-operated processes, granting them the benefit of the duty exemption.

6. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's argument regarding the equipment used by the appellants as machines for printing, highlighting the certification from the I.I.T. Delhi professor supporting the manual printing method. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding the impugned order unsustainable and granting consequential reliefs to the appellants.