Manufacture by textile processing: converted fabric into distinct household articles, attracting excise under the inclusive tariff entry.

Cutting, hemming and stitching dyed or printed cotton fabrics into bed-sheets, bed-covers, table-cloths and similar articles was treated as manufacture because the process created distinct commercial commodities with a different shape, use and identity. The tariff's inclusive definition of cotton fabrics expressly covered such finished articles, so they fell within Item 19 and were excisable even though made from duty-paid processed fabric. Arguments based on ejusdem generis, contemporanea expositio, absence of a separate rate, and proforma credit under Rule 56-A were rejected; only the credit mechanism affected computation, not chargeability. The classification and duty demand were sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether cutting, hemming and stitching dyed or printed cotton fabrics into bed-sheets, bed-covers, table-cloths and similar articles amounts to manufacture and produces excisable goods under Item 19 of the Central Excise Tariff; (ii) whether such articles, though made from duty-paid processed fabrics, fall within Item 19-I(b) and attract duty notwithstanding the plea that no separate rate was specified and that the tariff words should be confined by ejusdem generis or contemporanea expositio.

Issue (i): whether cutting, hemming and stitching dyed or printed cotton fabrics into bed-sheets, bed-covers, table-cloths and similar articles amounts to manufacture and produces excisable goods under Item 19 of the Central Excise Tariff.

Analysis: The processes undertaken converted running-length fabric into identifiable household articles with a different shape, use and commercial identity. The tariff itself specifically named bed-sheets, bed-covers and table-cloths in the inclusive definition of cotton fabrics, and the creation of such distinct commodities by processing answered the test of manufacture. The fact that the articles were made from duty-paid fabric did not prevent the later process from amounting to manufacture.

Conclusion: The processes amounted to manufacture and the resulting articles were excisable goods under Item 19.

Issue (ii): whether such articles, though made from duty-paid processed fabrics, fall within Item 19-I(b) and attract duty notwithstanding the plea that no separate rate was specified and that the tariff words should be confined by ejusdem generis or contemporanea expositio.

Analysis: Item 19 contained an extended definition of cotton fabrics, so the expression in the sub-items carried the same inclusive meaning as in the opening part of the entry. On that footing, bed-sheets and similar articles made from dyed or printed fabric fell within Item 19-I(b). The argument that there was no rate of duty was rejected because the sub-items governed cotton fabrics as a whole. The pleas based on ejusdem generis and contemporanea expositio were also rejected, as the tariff language was clear and the relied-upon tariff advices concerned different articles. The proforma credit under Rule 56-A did not alter the chargeability of duty on the manufactured articles.

Conclusion: The articles were classifiable under Item 19-I(b) and were liable to duty, with only the available proforma credit being relevant to computation.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, and the classification and duty demand confirmed by the lower authorities were sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a tariff entry expressly includes a product within the definition of excisable goods, processing that brings into existence a distinct commercial article answers the test of manufacture and the inclusive tariff definition governs classification of the finished article in the relevant sub-item.

---