Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether processed man-made fabrics falling under Item 22(3) of the Central Excise Tariff were exempt from handloom cess under Notification No. 115(E) dated 1-3-1975, and whether the relevant definition in the Khadi and Other Handloom Industries Development Act limited the levy to the pre-existing tariff description.
Analysis: The opening exemption in Notification No. 115(E) was held to operate generally for all varieties of cloth exempt from central excise duty, while the second proviso carved out an exclusion for processed man-made fabrics. The tariff description under Item 22 of the Central Excise Tariff was taken to govern the cess levy by reference, not by incorporation, so the later expansion of the tariff description applied for purposes of the cess. Since the goods were admittedly man-made fabrics and had undergone impregnation, coating and lamination, they answered the description of processed man-made fabrics and satisfied the exclusion in the proviso.
Conclusion: The exemption from handloom cess was not available, and the levy was sustained against the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the goods fell within the excluded category of processed man-made fabrics and remained liable to handloom cess.
Ratio Decidendi: Where an exemption notification excludes processed man-made fabrics, fabrics that are man-made and have undergone processing fall outside the exemption even if they are otherwise exempt from central excise duty.