9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (7) TMI 176X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Bembarg Dupatta) were seized. Along with this, six pieces of silk fabrics which were still-in process were also seized. On scrutiny of the record of the respondents, it was revealed that during the period from 8-7-1981 to 12-9-1981 they had processed and removed such processed man-made fabrics of Rs. 5,31,503.50 without payment of duty amounting to Rs. 21,636.58. As a sequel there of, a Show Cause Notice was issued to the respondents calling upon them to show cause as to why the aforesaid amount of duty be not demanded from them and penalty be not imposed and the seized goods be not confiscated. The respondents contested the Show Cause Notice inter alia contending that they are engaged in manual dyeing for Bembarg (Georgette) in degs and, therefore, no Central Excise Duty was leviable. However, the Deputy Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Amritsar, vide his Order-in-Original No. 4-CE/83 confirmed the demand of duty and also imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 25,000/- upon the respondents. He also ordered for the confiscation of the seized processed man-made fabrics giving an option to its lawful owner to redeem the same on payment of a redemption fine of Rs. 5,000/-. Against ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... manual dyeing of the said fabrics in open pans/degs it was subjected to washing for the purpose of removing stains and particles of dust from the surface of the fabric. This was done by putting the fabrics in a drum washing machine containing plain water, which machine was rotated with the aid of power with no chemicals or other substances being used for washing. Bembarg (Georgette) being a delicate fabric was first put in cotton cloth bags which was then put into the Drum Washer. The yarn used in the weaving of Bembarg (Georgette) is hard twist yarn with a considerably larger number of turns per inch than ordinary or voile twist yarn, and washing it with plain water imparts to the fabric what is known as a crepe effect. The so-called crepe effect is achieved even when Bembarg (Georgette) is washed manually in open pots or vessels. To support his contention, he cited the case of Siddeshwwi Cotton Mills (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, 1989 (39) E.L.T. 498 (SC), whereby the Apex Court remanded the case to the Tribunal for a fresh disposal in accordance with law. On remand this Tribunal held that plain rolling calendering of cotton fabrics gives only a temporary finish to the fabrics and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... look at the two stages involved in the activity of dyeing of man-made fabrics separately. The entire activity has to be seen as a whole and come to a decision on that basis whether the activity in which the appellant were engaged fell within the mischief of the T.I. No. 22(l)(b)-CET. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the said tariff item was not attracted in the case of the appellant. The activity of dyeing of man-made fabrics is specifically covered under T.I. No. 22(l)(b)-CET." 7. On a care full reading of the said Tariff Item No. 22(l)(b) which at the relevant time read as follows: man-made fabrics, subjected to the process of bleaching, dyeing, printing, shrink-proofing tentering, heat-setting, crease resistant processing or another process or any two or more of these processes and the manufacturing process involved in the instant case coupled with the fact that the appellants are admittedly marketing the same though partly we agree with the aforesaid findings of the Collector (Appeals) and reject the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the respondents. The case law cited at the Bar is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Notification. That apart, this was decided in terms of the unamended definition of manufacture in Section 2(f). 8. It was also contended by the learned counsel that the issue raised in the Show Cause Notice and adjudged in the Order-in-Original was confined to whether the process of washing man-made fabrics in plain water or in drum washers operation with the aid of power was dutiable process or not, and therefore, the Collector (Appeals) went beyond the Show Cause Notice in holding that the process of washing was a part of the process of dyeing and the two taken together amounted to a dutiable process. For this proposition, reliance was placed on the case of Raphael Pharmacenticals Pvt. Ltd. v. Superintendent of Distilleries, 1988 (38) E.L.T. 11, wherein it was held that the Order confirming the demand based on grounds not alleged in the Show Cause Notice-cum-demand duty is liable to be quashed. In reply, it was submitted by the JDR for the appellant that the demand confirmed by the authorities below does not travel beyond the Show Cause Notice. We have considered the submissions. From a reading of the Show Cause Notice issued in the instant case, it is clear that, the demand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
