2016 (3) TMI 948 - AT - Central Excise

Manufacture - whether the process of pleating and embossing does amount to manufacture? - whether the duty cannot be demanded from the job-worker but should be demanded from the supplier of the materials under rule 12B? - Held that - In view of the clear cut findings and in absence of any evidence to the effect that pleating and embossing results in a permanent change in the fabrics, we are unable to differ with the impugned order concluding that the process of pleating and embossing does not amount to manufacture. - Decided against the revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the process of pleating and embossing of fabrics amounts to manufacture.
2. Whether duty can be demanded from the job-worker or the supplier of materials under Rule 12B.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Pleating and Embossing as Manufacture
The case involved M/s Punikim and Shruti Textiles engaged in pleating and embossing of fabrics, initially exempted but later subjected to duty. The Addl. Commissioner held the processes amounted to manufacture, leading to a demand for duty, confiscation, penalty, and interest. The Commissioner (Appeals) disagreed, citing precedents like Girish Silk Mills and J.S. Knitters, stating the processes were temporary and did not constitute manufacture. Rule 12B was highlighted, indicating duty liability on the supplier, not the job-worker. The Revenue appealed, arguing that pleating and embossing qualified as manufacture based on a Circular by CBE&C and the Supreme Court's decision in Siddheshwar Cotton Mills.

Issue 2: Duty Liability on Job-Worker vs. Supplier
The Revenue contended that duty should be imposed on the job-worker conducting pleating and embossing, emphasizing the lasting impact of these processes. However, the Tribunal analyzed the precedents and legal provisions, concluding that only processes resulting in a reasonable permanent change in fabrics could be considered manufacture. Referring to cases like Ronuk Mfg. Co. and J.S. Knitters, it was established that temporary processes did not warrant duty imposition. The absence of evidence supporting a permanent change led to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal, affirming that duty could only be demanded from the supplier of materials, not the job-worker.

In the final judgment pronounced on 02.03.2016, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)' decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeals due to the lack of evidence showing pleating and embossing resulted in a permanent change in fabrics. The precedents and legal interpretations supported the conclusion that these processes did not amount to manufacture, thereby affirming that duty liability rested with the supplier of materials, not the job-worker.