1999 (2) TMI 185 - AT - Central Excise

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of Denim fabric under Tariff Heading 5207.29.
2. Denial of exemption under Notification No. 253/82-C.E. and Notification No. 40/95-C.E.
3. Determination of whether the manufacturing process amounts to "manufacture" under Chapter Note 3 to Chapter 52 of the CET Act.
4. Examination of the evidence and expert opinions presented by the appellants.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of Denim fabric under Tariff Heading 5207.29:
The appeal arises from the confirmation of a show cause notice classifying Denim fabric under Tariff Heading 5207.29. The authorities provisionally assessed and later finalized the classification, denying the benefit of certain notifications. The process of manufacture described involves singeing, heating, brushing, shrinking, and drying of the fabric. The authorities concluded that the processes performed on the Montforts machine impart lasting changes to the fabric, thus falling under Tariff Heading 5207.29.

2. Denial of exemption under Notification No. 253/82-C.E. and Notification No. 40/95-C.E.:
The show cause notice issued to the appellants detailed reasons for denying the benefit of the notifications. The reasons included the controlled compressive shrinkage achieved by the Montforts machine and the foam-vacuum application technique, which were not listed in the Table annexed to the notifications. The Assistant Commissioner concluded that the processes performed amounted to manufacture, thus denying the exemption. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, relying on a previous Tribunal judgment in the case of Amtex India Pvt. Ltd.

3. Determination of whether the manufacturing process amounts to "manufacture" under Chapter Note 3 to Chapter 52 of the CET Act:
The appellants contested that the process carried out did not amount to manufacture and did not bring into existence a lasting change as required by Note 3 to Chapter 52. They relied on various expert opinions and technical literature. The Assistant Commissioner, however, concluded that the process of controlled compressive shrinkage amounted to manufacture, citing expert opinions and the irreversible nature of the changes imparted to the fabric. The Tribunal noted that the true import of the Supreme Court judgment in Siddeshwari Cotton Mills, which dealt with the interpretation of "any other process," was not considered by the Assistant Commissioner or the Commissioner (Appeals).

4. Examination of the evidence and expert opinions presented by the appellants:
The appellants presented various pieces of evidence, including a certificate from M/s. COMTEC, a certificate from M/s. EXPAN Enterprises, and an affidavit from a textile expert. They argued that the process did not result in a lasting change to the fabric. The Assistant Commissioner, however, relied on certain expert opinions and concluded that the process amounted to manufacture. The Tribunal found that the Assistant Commissioner did not adequately analyze the evidence and misinterpreted the expert opinions. The Tribunal also noted that the additional evidence sought to be introduced by the appellants was relevant and should be considered.

Conclusion and Remand:
The Tribunal concluded that the orders of the Assistant Commissioner and Commissioner (Appeals) were unsustainable due to the misinterpretation of evidence and failure to consider relevant judgments. The matter was remanded to the Assistant Commissioner for de novo consideration, with directions to analyze all evidence and expert opinions presented by both sides. The Assistant Commissioner was ordered to pass a speaking order within four months from the date of receipt of the Tribunal's order, with the consent of both parties to expedite the proceedings. The appeal succeeded by way of remand.

← Previous Next →