Textile processing as manufacture attracts cess; first-time levy not barred by limitation, and job-work valuation plea failed.

Bleaching, dyeing and printing of grey cloth were treated as manufacture because the processed fabric emerged as a commercially distinct textile, so Textile Committee cess was attracted. Rule 10 of the Textile Committee Cess Rules, 1975 was held to apply only to short levy or erroneous levy, not to a first-time levy, so the demand was not time barred on the facts. The plea that cess should be confined to the value of job-work alone was rejected for lack of factual foundation and supporting material, and no exemption basis from handloom or powerloom sources was established.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether bleaching, dyeing and printing of grey cloth amount to manufacture of textiles under the Textile Committee Act, 1963; (ii) Whether the demand for Textile Committee cess was barred by limitation under Rule 10 of the Textile Committee Cess Rules, 1975; (iii) Whether the cess had to be confined only to the value of the job-work done.

Issue (i): Whether bleaching, dyeing and printing of grey cloth amount to manufacture of textiles under the Textile Committee Act, 1963.

Analysis: The charging provision levies cess on textiles manufactured in India, and the definition of textiles is wide enough to include fabric or cloth that undergoes processing. The Court applied the settled test of manufacture, namely whether the original commodity, after processing, emerges as a commercially distinct and new article. It also treated the charging provision as capable of taking colour from the corresponding concept of manufacture in excise law by legislation by reference. On that basis, the processes of bleaching, dyeing and printing were held to bring about manufacture.

Conclusion: The processes undertaken by the petitioners amount to manufacture, and the cess liability is attracted.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand for Textile Committee cess was barred by limitation under Rule 10 of the Textile Committee Cess Rules, 1975.

Analysis: Rule 10 was held to apply only where cess had already been levied and there was short levy or erroneous levy. The Court held that where the levy itself was being raised for the first time, Rule 10 did not control the recovery. In the absence of any specific statutory bar, the demand could not be treated as time barred on the facts before the Court.

Conclusion: The demand was not barred by limitation.

Issue (iii): Whether the cess had to be confined only to the value of the job-work done.

Analysis: The Court held that the assessable value argument was factual in nature and had not been properly raised or supported before the Tribunal. In the absence of a factual foundation, the Court declined to entertain the plea in writ jurisdiction. It also found no material to establish the claimed exemption basis from handloom or powerloom sources.

Conclusion: The petitioners were not entitled to restriction of cess to job-work value alone.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions failed because the processing activity was held to be manufacture, the demand was not time barred, and no factual or legal basis was shown to limit the cess computation as claimed.

Ratio Decidendi: For cess under the Textile Committee Act, processing that brings about a commercially distinct textile amounts to manufacture, and a recovery provision limited to short levy or erroneous levy does not bar a first-time levy.

---