Permanent fabric transformation through crushing can amount to manufacture, and marketable crushed fabrics may attract excise duty.

Crushing grey manmade fabrics with power, followed by heating treatment that makes the crushed effect permanent, was treated as manufacture under Chapter Note 4 of Chapter 55 because the process brought about a lasting transformation in the fabric. The resulting crushed fabrics were also held marketable, since they were admitted to be sold as such and were known in the market as crushed fabrics, making them excisable goods. Penalties were nevertheless set aside because the dispute was primarily one of tariff interpretation and no mala fide was established.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the process of crushing grey manmade fabrics with the aid of power amounts to manufacture under Chapter Note 4 of Chapter 55 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985; (ii) whether the crushed fabrics were marketable goods liable to central excise duty; (iii) whether penalty under the penal provisions was sustainable in the circumstances of the case.

Issue (i): Whether the process of crushing grey manmade fabrics with the aid of power amounts to manufacture under Chapter Note 4 of Chapter 55 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.

Analysis: The process involved repeated crushing of the fabric in machines operated with power, followed by treatment in a felt machine with heating arrangement, by which the crushed effect became permanent and could not be undone by washing. The resulting change was not merely transient but was a lasting transformation in the fabric. Chapter Note 4 treats specified processes and any other comparable process applied to the relevant headings as manufacture. The crushing process was held to fall within that inclusive expression because it brought about a permanent change in the fabric.

Conclusion: The process of crushing amounted to manufacture.

Issue (ii): Whether the crushed fabrics were marketable goods liable to central excise duty.

Analysis: The assessees themselves accepted that the crushed fabrics were sold as such, and the products were known in the market as crushed fabrics. The marketability test was therefore satisfied. The argument that the goods were merely intermediate or non-marketable did not survive in view of the admitted saleability of the product and the evidence of market availability.

Conclusion: The crushed fabrics were marketable excisable goods and duty was payable.

Issue (iii): Whether penalty under the penal provisions was sustainable in the circumstances of the case.

Analysis: Although the duty demand was upheld, the dispute turned on interpretation of the tariff entry and the character of the process. In the absence of mala fide, the penal consequence was considered unwarranted. The Tribunal therefore interfered with the penalties imposed, while leaving the duty liability undisturbed.

Conclusion: Penalty was not sustainable and was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The duty demands were sustained on the footing that crushing of the fabrics amounted to manufacture of marketable goods, but the penalties were deleted, resulting in a partial success for both sides and dismissal of the Revenue's enhancement appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: A process that brings about a permanent change in fabric and renders the product marketable can amount to manufacture under the inclusive tariff note, but penalty may still be unwarranted where the dispute is one of interpretation and mala fide is not established.

---