TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Designer Saree Conversion Not Manufacture under Central Excise Act</h1> <h3>Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-I Versus M/s Rohit Bal Designs Pvt Ltd</h3> Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-I Versus M/s Rohit Bal Designs Pvt Ltd - 2016 (335) E.L.T. 543 (Tri. - Del.) Issues:Classification of designer sarees under Central Excise Act, 1944 as a process of manufacture.Analysis:The case involves a dispute over the classification of designer sarees under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant, Revenue, challenged an order stating that the conversion of sarees into designer sarees does not constitute a process of manufacture as per Section 2 (f) of the Act. The respondent, a fashion designer, was accused of clearing designer sarees without duty payment. The adjudicating authority classified the sarees under Chapter Heading 6307.90 as made-ups based on extra work contributing greater thickness to the cloth. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside this order, leading to the Revenue's appeal.The appellant relied on CBEC Circular No. 557/53/2000-CX to argue that the sarees were unhemmed, thus falling under CTH 6307.90. However, the respondent did not appear for the hearing, and the impugned order was reviewed. The Commissioner (Appeals) noted that the respondent had performed embroidery and hemming work on duty-paid sarees purchased from the market. This fact was not disputed by the appellant, leading to a conclusion that the CBEC Circular did not apply to the case. The Commissioner (Appeals) referenced judicial precedents, including a Supreme Court judgment, to support the finding that the processes undertaken did not result in a new article with distinct characteristics.Ultimately, the Tribunal agreed with the Commissioner (Appeals) that the activities performed by the respondent did not amount to a process of manufacture under Section 2 (f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal held that the character of the sarees remained unchanged despite the additional work done, making them non-excisable. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed, upholding the impugned order.
TaxTMI 