TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the statutory amendment treating bleaching, mercerising, dyeing, printing and similar processing of cotton and man-made fabrics as "manufacture" was beyond legislative competence under Entry 84 of List I and violated Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. (ii) Whether processed grey fabrics remained outside the amended tariff entries and therefore escaped excise duty notwithstanding the amendment. (iii) Whether excise duty on processed fabrics had to be confined to job-work value and whether credit for duty already paid on grey cloth could be denied.
Issue (i): Whether the statutory amendment treating bleaching, mercerising, dyeing, printing and similar processing of cotton and man-made fabrics as "manufacture" was beyond legislative competence under Entry 84 of List I and violated Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
Analysis: The amendment expanded the statutory definition of manufacture and made corresponding validating and retrospective changes to the tariff entries. The Court applied the settled test that manufacture is not mere processing, but a transformation resulting in a new and different commercial article having a distinctive name, character or use. Processed fabric was held to be commercially distinct from grey cloth. Retrospective fiscal legislation was also held not to be invalid merely because it operates harshly, and no independent basis was shown for treating the retrospective levy as an unreasonable restriction on business.
Conclusion: The amendment was within legislative competence and was not unconstitutional under Article 19(1)(g). The challenge failed.
Issue (ii): Whether processed grey fabrics remained outside the amended tariff entries and therefore escaped excise duty notwithstanding the amendment.
Analysis: The Court held that the substituted tariff items expressly split cotton fabrics and man-made fabrics into processed and unprocessed categories. The definition of cotton fabrics in the tariff entry did not need to be separately amended because the substituted items clearly captured the processed goods. The amended entries overrode the earlier view that such processed fabrics would fall only under the residuary item. The Court therefore treated the processed fabrics as specifically exigible under the revised tariff structure.
Conclusion: Processed cotton and man-made fabrics were liable to excise duty under the amended entries. The contention of the petitioners was rejected.
Issue (iii): Whether excise duty on processed fabrics had to be confined to job-work value and whether credit for duty already paid on grey cloth could be denied.
Analysis: Excise valuation was governed by the statutory value-based scheme, not by the petitioners' narrow job-work formulation. The Court noted that the statutory credit mechanism protected against double incidence where duty had already been paid on the grey cloth. Questions about the adequacy of such credit were treated as matters of legislative policy, not judicial interference, and no sustainable challenge to valuation was made out.
Conclusion: The valuation and credit challenge failed. Duty could be levied in accordance with the statute, with applicable credit for duty already paid on the input material.
Final Conclusion: The petitions were not maintainable on the asserted constitutional and statutory grounds, and the excise levy on processed fabrics was upheld.
Ratio Decidendi: A process amounts to manufacture when it brings into existence a commercially distinct article with a different name, character or use, and a retrospective validating fiscal amendment that expressly brings such processed goods within the charging scheme is constitutionally permissible.
TaxTMI 
