1999 (3) TMI 190 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Whether the printed cotton flocked fabric constitutes a new commodity, warranting a fresh duty liability.

Analysis:
The case involved a dispute where the appellants purchased duty paid cotton fabrics from the market, printed them, and cleared the same. The main contention was whether the printed fabric should be considered a new commodity, leading to an additional duty liability. The Revenue argued that the printed fabric was distinct from the non-printed fabric, justifying a new duty. On the other hand, the appellants argued that the uses of the non-printed and printed fabric remained the same, indicating no new commodity was created. The Apex Court's judgment in Union of India v. J.G. Glass was cited, highlighting a two-fold test to determine whether a new commodity emerges through a manufacturing process.

The appellants' advocate emphasized that the two tests laid down by the Apex Court were not met in this case since the uses of the original and printed fabric were similar. The Revenue, represented by the JDR, contended that the process of printing altered the fabric's use, making it suitable for different purposes, thus constituting manufacturing. The JDR also relied on previous court judgments to support their argument.

After considering both sides, the Tribunal applied the two tests from the Apex Court's judgment. It was observed that while the first test might have been met due to the creation of printed fabric from non-printed fabric, the second test was not fulfilled. As the uses of both types of fabric were similar, the Tribunal concluded that no new commodity was created, thereby rejecting the imposition of fresh duty. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeals were allowed in favor of the appellants. Additionally, the Tribunal noted the significance of the J.G. Glass case in establishing a general principle regarding the creation of new commodities, distinguishing it from previous judgments like Empire Industries.