1989 (6) TMI 122 - AT - Central Excise

'Garnetting' ruled not a manufacturing process under Central Excises and Salt Act. Appeals dismissed.

The Court held that 'garnetting' is not a manufacturing process under Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. It was determined to be ... Garnetting is not a manufacturing process and is basically a spinning process Issues:1. Whether 'garnetting' of waste amounts to a process of 'manufacture' under Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.Detailed Analysis:1. Common Issue in Appeals:The judgment involved two appeals where the common issue was whether 'garnetting' of waste constitutes a process of 'manufacture' as per the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.2. Argument for Appellant:The Appellant argued that 'fibre' and 'waste' are distinct commercial products, emphasizing that the end product post 'garnetting' is identifiable with a different name, character, and use. Reference was made to various authoritative sources defining 'garnetting' as a process of recovering fibres from textile waste materials.3. Authorities Referred:The Appellant cited definitions from Indian Standard, Encyclopaedia of Textiles, Mc Graw-Hill Dictionary, Complete Textile Encyclopaedia, and Textile Terms and Definitions Committee, all supporting the assertion that 'garnetting' is a manufacturing process.4. Central Excise Tariff Interpretation:The Appellant highlighted that the Assistant Collector had previously considered 'garnetting' as a manufacturing process subject to Central Excise duty under Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. It was argued that 'garnetting' results in the conversion of waste into fibre, creating a new product known as 'shoddy wool.'5. Court's Analysis:The Court carefully reviewed the technical literature and definitions of 'garnetting.' It was observed that the process does not lead to the emergence of a new commercial commodity with distinct characteristics from the raw material. Instead, 'garnetting' rearranges the material for spinning without creating a new product.6. Conclusion:The Court held that 'garnetting' is not a manufacturing process but rather incidental to the spinning of yarn. It was deemed a part of the spinning process aimed at preparing thread waste for spinning, rather than creating a new excisable product. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed, and cross-objections were disposed of accordingly.This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive understanding of the legal reasoning and interpretation of the issue related to the 'garnetting' process and its classification as a manufacturing activity under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.