2009 (2) TMI 208 - AT - Central Excise

Manufacturers denied tax exemption for calendered fabrics under specific provision

NARSINGGIRJI MILLS Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE

NARSINGGIRJI MILLS Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE - 2009 (241) E.L.T. 237 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues:Interpretation of Notification No. 8/96-C.E., dated 23-7-96 as amended from time to time.Analysis:The case involved the interpretation of Notification No. 8/96-C.E., specifically focusing on Sr. No. 52.7 and Sr. No. 52.15. The dispute revolved around whether the appellants, engaged in the manufacture of cotton fabrics, should be granted exemption under Sr. No. 52.7 for woven fabrics of cotton or fall under Sr. No. 52.15 for woven fabrics of cotton subjected to specific processes, including calendering. The revenue argued that since the appellants undertook calendering with plain rollers, they should be covered under Sr. No. 52.15, subject to fulfilling condition No. 17 of the Notification, which the appellants failed to satisfy.The Tribunal carefully analyzed the entries under Sr. No. 52.7 and Sr. No. 52.15 of the Notification to determine the applicability of the exemption. It was observed that while Sr. No. 52.7 granted a 'NIL' rate of duty for woven fabrics of cotton without conditions, fabrics subjected to processes like calendering under Sr. No. 52.15 would attract the latter serial number, subject to fulfillment of conditions. The Tribunal emphasized that the process of calendering, even if not considered as manufacturing, was crucial in determining the duty liability of the fabrics, shifting them from Sr. No. 52.7 to Sr. No. 52.15.Moreover, the Tribunal addressed the appellant's argument that calendering with plain rollers should not fall under Sr. No. 52.15, highlighting that the exclusion of calendering with grooved rollers specifically meant that calendering with plain rollers was included. The explanation provided under Sr. No. 52.15 further clarified that calendering with the aid of a zero-zero machine without a stenter attachment was considered as part of the process, extending the scope of calendering. Since the appellants failed to satisfy the conditions under Sr. No. 52.15, they were not entitled to the benefits associated with that serial number.Ultimately, the Tribunal found no merit in the appeals and rejected them, upholding the duty confirmation and the impugned orders. It is noteworthy that no penalty was imposed on the appellants in this case. The judgment was pronounced on 20-2-2009.