9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 812X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iolet and Tinopal. The Blue Acid Violet, Copper Sulphate and Tinopal are used for padding of the bleached fabrics. The Department's contention is that since Notification No.40/1995-CE exempts only the padding done by applying starch or fatty materials on one or both the sides of the fabrics, use of other chemicals like Urea Formaldehyde, Tinopal, Copper Sulphate etc. would result in above exemption Notification becoming inapplicable. However, the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Coimbatore vs. Coimbatore Pioneer Mills (2008 (3) TMI 210 - CESTAT, CHENNAI) and Amar Processors vs. CCE, Ahmedabad-I (2010 (4) TMI 519 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD) and also in the case of CCE, Coimbatore vs. SSM Processing Mills reported in [2008 (2) TMI 292 - CESTAT, CHENNAI] ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 40/1995-CE which exempted from the whole of the excise duty leviable thereon, the cotton fabrics subjected to the process of padding, that is to say applying starch or fatty material on one or both sides of the fabrics . Since, the appellant in their padding process had also used Urea Formaldehyde, Copper Sulphate, Tinopal and Blue Acid Violet, the Department was of the view that they are not eligible for the exemption under Notification No.40/1995-CE dated 16/03/95. On this basis after issue of three show cause notices, the Jurisdictional Additional Commissioner vide order-in-original No.4, 5 6/VK/2002 dated 31/01/02 confirmed the duty demands of ₹ 5,77,812/-, ₹ 24,35,210/- and ₹ 11,03,687/- for the period from 15/05/9 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for padding, the exemption cannot be denied, that padding involves applying padding solution consisting of starch and fatty materials or other chemicals to give temporary stiffness to the fabrics, that it does not bring any permanent change in the fabrics, that the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Coimbatore vs. Coimbatore Pioneer Mills reported in 2008 (228) E.L.T. 616 (Tri.-Chennai) has held that subjecting the fabrics to the process of padding with starch and chemicals is not manufacture, as the fabric acquires the quality of stiffness which vanishes after a couple of washes and it does not bring into existence any new goods with a distinct name, characteristic or uses, that same view has been taken by the Tribunal in the case of Amar Proce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inopal, Copper Sulphate etc. would result in above exemption Notification becoming inapplicable. However, the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Coimbatore vs. Coimbatore Pioneer Mills (supra) and Amar Processors vs. CCE, Ahmedabad-I (supra) and also in the case of CCE, Coimbatore vs. SSM Processing Mills reported in 2008 (229) E.L.T. 392 (Tri.-Chennai) has held that the process of padding does not amount to manufacture, as it brings only a temporary stiffness to fabric which vanishes after a couple of washes and, as such, it does not bring into existence a new product with distinct name, characteristic and uses. When the process of padding was held to be non-amounting to manufacture, no excise duty would be attracted and, as such, there is no qu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
