Chemiking and spotting on fabrics held not to be manufacture under Central Excise law

Chemiking and spotting on fabrics were examined as standalone processes under Central Excise law, and they were held not to amount to manufacture. The later dyeing of the fabrics by another processor was treated as irrelevant to the character of the appellant's own activity. On the facts, chemiking and spotting were found to be akin to washing simpliciter and did not bring into existence a new marketable product. Note 4 to Chapter 55 was considered, but it did not alter the conclusion that the processes were not manufacturing in nature, so the duty liability could not be sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the processes of chemiking and spotting undertaken on fabrics amounted to manufacture under the Central Excise law.

Analysis: The processes carried out by the appellant were examined in isolation. The fact that the fabrics were later subjected to further dyeing by another processor was held to be irrelevant to deciding whether the appellant's own activity amounted to manufacture. The record showed that chemiking and spotting were akin to washing and did not bring into existence any new marketable product. Note 4 to Chapter 55 was considered, but the activity was found to be only washing simpliciter and not a manufacturing process on the facts of the case.

Conclusion: The processes of chemiking and spotting did not amount to manufacture and the finding of duty liability could not be sustained.

---