Manufacture in excise law upheld for processed fabric; valuation includes grey cloth and manufacturing elements, not trading profit.

Bleaching, dyeing, printing, sizing, mercerising and allied job-work on grey fabric were treated as manufacture because the processed fabric emerged as a commercially distinct commodity; the excise levy was therefore upheld. The retrospective amendment enlarging the definition of manufacture and the tariff entries was sustained as within Parliament's legislative competence, including support from the residuary power if necessary. The additional excise duty under the 1957 Act also stood because the amended excise framework and valuation machinery applied to the levy. Retrospective validation did not violate Article 19(1)(g). For valuation, the assessable value of processed fabric was the factory-gate value of the finished product, including grey cloth value and manufacturing elements, but excluding post-manufacturing trading profit.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether bleaching, dyeing, printing, sizing, mercerising, shrink-proofing and allied processes carried out on grey fabric on job-work basis amounted to manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944; (ii) whether the retrospective amendment enlarging the definition of manufacture and the tariff entries was beyond the legislative competence of Parliament under Entry 84 of List I, and if so whether it could be supported under Entry 97 of List I; (iii) whether the levy of additional excise duty under the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 could stand without a corresponding enlargement of the definition of manufacture; (iv) whether the retrospective operation of the validating amendment violated Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India; and (v) what was the correct assessable value of processed fabric for excise purposes.

Issue (i): Whether bleaching, dyeing, printing, sizing, mercerising, shrink-proofing and allied processes carried out on grey fabric on job-work basis amounted to manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

Analysis: The processes applied to grey fabric were held to bring about a commercially different commodity with its own price structure and commercial incidents. The established test of manufacture was whether the original commodity, after processing, lost its commercial identity and emerged as a distinct article. Applying that test, the Court accepted that processed fabric was not merely grey fabric with a minor change, but a manufactured product for excise purposes.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in the affirmative and against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the retrospective amendment enlarging the definition of manufacture and the tariff entries was beyond the legislative competence of Parliament under Entry 84 of List I, and if so whether it could be supported under Entry 97 of List I.

Analysis: The amendment was treated as an enlargement of the concept of manufacture in a field sufficiently connected with excise legislation. Even if the widened concept were viewed as extending beyond Entry 84, the legislation was supportable under the residuary legislative power. The Court also emphasised that the competence of Parliament could be defended by reference to any available entry within its power, and that the impugned levy was not invalid merely because the expanded definition was introduced by amendment.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the Revenue and the amendment was upheld as within legislative competence.

Issue (iii): Whether the levy of additional excise duty under the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 could stand without a corresponding enlargement of the definition of manufacture.

Analysis: The Court held that Section 3(3) of the 1957 Act attracted the provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 so far as they were applicable to levy and collection, and that the amended concept of manufacture as well as the valuation machinery could be read into the additional duty scheme. The schedule amendments and the supplemental nature of the 1957 Act supported this construction, so the additional levy did not fail for want of a separate definition.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the Revenue.

Issue (iv): Whether the retrospective operation of the validating amendment violated Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The Court reaffirmed that a competent legislature may validate a levy retrospectively by curing the defect identified by a prior judgment. Retrospective taxation and validation were not unconstitutional merely because they imposed a burden for an earlier period, especially where the legislature acted to remove the infirmity in the earlier law.

Conclusion: The issue was answered against the assessee.

Issue (v): What was the correct assessable value of processed fabric for excise purposes.

Analysis: The assessable value was held to be the factory-gate value of the processed fabric, comprising the value of the grey cloth, the job-work charges, and the manufacturing profit and manufacturing expenses, but excluding post-manufacturing profits of the trader. The value could not be confined to processing charges alone, because excise is levied on manufacture and the valuation must reflect the intrinsic value of the manufactured product at the point of removal.

Conclusion: The assessable value was held to include the value of grey cloth and processing-related manufacturing elements, and not the trader's later selling profit.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the levy failed, the amendment and the valuation method were upheld, the Revenue's appeals succeeded, and the processors' appeals and writ petitions were dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: For excise purposes, processed fabric on job-work basis is a manufactured commodity whose assessable value is the factory-gate value of the finished product, comprising raw-material value and manufacturing elements but excluding subsequent trading profit, and the legislative enlargement of the concept of manufacture can be supported by the Union's taxing competence including the residuary power.

---