Excise exemption for waste cotton yarn and sizing as manufacture upheld; flawed adjudication required remand and quashing of notice.

Procedural fairness in excise adjudication required a proper hearing at the RT 12 stage and due disposal of the show-cause notice; because neither occurred, the proceedings were treated as vitiated and remand was warranted. On exemption, waste cotton yarn arising at the sizing stage was held eligible under Notification No. 95/61-CE because the notification did not limit relief to waste from any particular stage. Sizing was also treated as part of manufacture, since processes incidental or ancillary to completion of the goods fall within the inclusive definition of manufacture under the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. The notice to show cause was quashed and consequential relief followed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the proceedings were vitiated for denial of opportunity and failure to adjudicate the show-cause notice, and whether the matter required remand; (ii) Whether waste cotton yarn arising at the sizing stage was entitled to exemption under Notification No. 95/61-CE, and whether sizing formed part of manufacture for duty purposes.

Issue (i): Whether the proceedings were vitiated for denial of opportunity and failure to adjudicate the show-cause notice, and whether the matter required remand.

Analysis: The assessment was found to be procedurally flawed because no proper opportunity of hearing had been afforded at the RT 12 stage and the subsequent show-cause notice had not been duly adjudicated. The matter was therefore viewed as one warranting remand for proper adjudication on the notice to show cause.

Conclusion: The proceedings were vitiated and the matter was fit for remand.

Issue (ii): Whether waste cotton yarn arising at the sizing stage was entitled to exemption under Notification No. 95/61-CE, and whether sizing formed part of manufacture for duty purposes.

Analysis: The exemption notification did not confine relief to waste arising at any particular stage, and there was no basis to restrict it to waste generated only at the spindle point. The levy on cotton yarn was on manufacture, and the inclusive definition of manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 covered processes incidental or ancillary to completion of the product. Sizing was such a process, and the amendment of 1964 made that position explicit for goods under Item 18A of the First Schedule.

Conclusion: Waste cotton yarn arising on sizing was eligible for the exemption, and sizing formed part of manufacture for the relevant levy.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the unadjudicated notice to show cause was quashed, and consequential relief was directed.

Ratio Decidendi: An exemption for waste cotton yarn will not be confined to a particular stage unless the notification so provides, and a process incidental or ancillary to completion of the goods forms part of manufacture for excise purposes.

---