TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1998 (12) TMI 182
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ribed by the appellant's Director in the course of statement recorded from him is that two threads one of cotton and another wool are stitched & knitted and the woollen thread comes up in the form of pile. This was believed by the Central Excise Officers that the fabric manufactured by the appellant fell under Tariff Heading 6001.19 described as knitted or crocheted fabric of other than cotton or man-made textile materials. It was also recorded in the statement that the appellant were undertaking tumbler dry process before the goods were sent to their customers. This process of tumble dry is being carried out with the aid of power. A show cause notice was, therefore, issued to the appellant asking them as to why a duty of Rs. 2,51,083.19 sh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g percentage 47 was declared as wool. A sample was thereafter sent on the direction of the Tribunal to the Chemical Examiner and a report has been given. The composition of the fabric is as follows :- 1. 51.7% Cotton 2. 7.4% Viscose 3. 41.9% Wool The Chemical Examiner has described the fabric with pile manufactured of wool. 4. Ld. Advocate Shri J.P. Kaushik has urged that a specific query was made to the Chemical Examiner to find out whether the product has a base fabric or not. That query has not been replied to by the Chemical Examiner. Ld. Advocate, therefore, submits that absence of reply from the Chemical Examiner supports their case that the product does not have a base fabric and, therfore, the predominence of the fib....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... not. In this connection, ld. Advocate has submitted that the process undertaken by them does not bring into existence a new commodity. It cannot be treated as process of manufacture. It merely dries knitted fabric. For this proposition ld. Advocate relies on Larger Branch judgment of this Tribunal in the case of Adreena Industries v. CCE, Chandigarh - 1987 (28) E.L.T. 364 wherein it has been held that the process of drying is not a process of manufacture even if power is uded in relation thereto. As against the above contention, the lower authority has held that tumbling dry process is a process of manufacture. On careful consideration of the pleas advanced from both sides, we agree with the submissions of the ld. Advocate that tumbling dr....