Power use in textile processing requires direct use in manufacture; inspection lighting alone is insufficient for excise liability.

Printing and stentering activity was held not to be carried on with aid of power for excise purposes where the only established use of electricity was light for inspection of printed fabric. The statutory note in Chapter 58 applies only when power is used in the manufacturing operation itself or in an integral process connected with manufacture, and mere inspection lighting does not satisfy that test. The record also failed to show that power was used in stentering, which was treated in this textile context as a drying process. The demand and penalty were therefore unsustainable and were set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant's printing and stentering activity was done with aid of power so as to attract duty and penalty under the excise provisions.

Analysis: The activity was found to be carried out on running fabric, and the finding of use of power rested only on the use of light for inspection of the printed fabric. The statutory note in Chapter 58 applies only where the relevant process is inextricably connected with manufacture and is carried on with aid of power. Mere use of light for inspection was not treated as use of power for the manufacturing process. The record also did not establish use of power in stentering, and the process was understood as mere drying in the cited textile context.

Conclusion: The demand and penalty were unsustainable and were set aside in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A process is treated as being carried on with aid of power only when the power is used in the manufacturing operation itself or in an integral process connected with it; incidental use of light for inspection does not satisfy that test.

---