Excise duty liability on embroidered fabric stayed with the original manufacturer, not the later dyeing processor.

Excise duty on grey embroidered cotton fabric was considered in relation to dyeing carried out by a later processor. The text states that where the fabric had already acquired the character of embroidered cotton fabric before reaching the processor, and the processor only dyed it without manufacturing the base fabric or creating the embroidery, duty liability, if any, remained with the original manufacturer. Dyeing alone did not create a new excisable product for fastening duty on the later processor. The stated result is that the demand against the processor was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether excise duty liability in respect of grey embroidered cotton fabric, after dyeing by the appellants, devolved on the appellants or only on the manufacturer who had produced the embroidered fabric.

Analysis: The dispute turned on the nature of the appellants' activity. The fabric had already acquired the character of embroidered cotton fabric before it reached the appellants, and the appellants only carried out dyeing. On the facts, they neither manufactured the base fabric nor created the embroidery. If any duty had escaped on the embroidered cotton fabric, the liability had to be fastened on the manufacturer of that fabric and not on a later processor. The process of dyeing did not convert the goods into a new excisable product for the purpose of fastening duty on the appellants.

Conclusion: The duty liability did not devolve on the appellants; the demand against them was unsustainable and is decided in favour of the appellants.

Ratio Decidendi: Mere processing of already manufactured embroidered fabric, without manufacture of the base fabric or embroidery, does not shift excise duty liability to the processor where the taxable event, if any, occurred earlier at the stage of manufacture.

---