9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (4) TMI 232X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... engaged in processing of Man Made Grey Fabrics. The other three applicants namely M/s. Garden Silk Mills Inds., M/s. Vareli Textiles lnds. Ltd. and M/s. Surat Textiles Mills Ltd. were traders who entrusted the grey fabrics to M/s. Special Prints Ltd. for processing. The processed goods were generally supplied to the traders in Lump Form. The traders would cut and pack the process textile on their own, before marketing. In certain cases, M/s. Special Prints Ltd. himself undertake these processes for which an additional conisderation was paid by the traders. The traders had filed requisite declaration in terms of Notification No. 305/77 for availing exemption from licensing control. Such activity of processing of grey fabrics by M/s. Special ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /- on M/s. Special Prints Ltd. and penalties of Rs. 15,00,000/- each on the three traders. He also ordered confiscation of the land, building etc. but allowed the redemption on payment of fine of Rs. 25,00,000/-. He directed that interest 20% be paid in the case of delay in payment of the sums confirmed and imposed in these orders. These 8 appeals and applications arise out of these two orders. 5. We have heard Shri J.F. Pochkhanwala the ld. Sr. Counsel with Shri B. Somandy Advocate for the applicants and Shri K.C. Agrawal for the Revenue. 6. We have carefully considered the issues involved in the proceedings and have also seen the notification and the case law relied upon. 7. The thrust of the show cause notices is that where the tra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommodity. Even in the absence of this pronouncement it could not be held that merely cutting and folding processed fabrics would amount to process of manufacture. Therefore the allegation that this process was deliberately entrusted to the traders for artificially depressing the assessable value of the fabrics does not hold force. 9. It is correct that such manufacturing activities when undertaken in the factory of original manufacturer would make for value addition and that such processes undertaken outside the factory gate would not be addable the assessable value of goods in the hands of the manufacturer. But this anomaly is only apparent and not real. 10. We also find that although the same situation pervailed from 1981 onward, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
