TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (4) TMI 400
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng 1-3-02 to 13-8-02 25-9-03 Duty 5,30,110/- Penalty 10,000 E/671/05 Rajalakshi Textile processing 1-3-02 to 31-1-03 25-9-03 Duty 2,79,794/- 3/672/05 Venkateswara Saree processing 1-3-02 to 31-8-03 25-9-03 Duty 5,40,270/- E/943/05 Sai Vishnu processing 1-3-02 to 30-11-02 19-8-2004 Duty 27,13,971/- E/411/03 Raja Exports 1-3-02 to 12-8-03 4-11-03 Duty 5,77,685/- 2. The issue involved in these matters is as to whether the process of decatising attracts Central Excise duty after the budget of 2003 and as to whether larger period is attracted in the matter. Taking the second issue into consideration, i.e. pertaining to demands being time barred on the ground that the appellants were carrying on the process of decatising without use of power for ducts and the department was aware of the same and that the demands are not required to be confirmed; it is seen that on this ground, the OIA No. 112/05, dated 29-5-05 in the case of Prakash Saree Processing, the Commissioner has recorded as follows :- "At the same time the fact that Government has changed the pattern of valuation from charging duty on the value of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....otifications namely 26/02 and 47/02 and hence the subsequent notifications are nothing but clarificatory in nature and in terms of the Tribunal ruling rendered in the case of Apex Steels Pvt Ltd v. CCE, Chandigarh [1995 (80) E.L.T. 368]. Such amendment would amount to be treated as clarificatory in nature and hence, demands cannot be raised for the periods in question. It was also submitted that as per the New Textile Policy, with effect from 1-4-2003 duty liability is not on job worker but on the weavers/traders and the owners of the goods vide Rule 12B read with press note dated 25-3-2003. The job worker did not opt to pay duty. As the department failed to proceed against the traders/weavers, as required under Rule 12B, therefore, the appellants cannot be proceeded for confirmation of duty for the period from 1-4-2003 to 31-3-2004. It is further submitted in the case of Sai Vishunu Processing Co. by learned Counsel, Shri Ravishankar that there is a demand for the process of calendaring. The process of calendaring has been held to be not a process of manufacture in large number of judgments and these judgments were all considered by this bench in a similar matter in the case of An....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion No. 40/02-C.E., dated 14-8-2002 vide Sl. No. 17 charged woven fabrics subjected to the process of calendaring or decatising or both to 16% ad valorem. Therefore it shows the legislative intention to charge the woven fabrics subjected to the process of calendaring or decatising. It is submitted that once, the process of decatising is completed, the sarees are neatly stacked and put to sale being ready to use and hence it is a process of manufacture. It is contended that the Notification No. 40/02-C.E., dated 14-8-2002 is not retrospective in effect as the Notifications have effect from the date of its issue. It is also submitted that the value cannot be treated as cum-duty and deemed credit. The Commissioner in the written submissions has therefore prayed for confirmation of demands . He has also said that the demands are not barred by time as the assessee had taken registration certificate from the department with effect from August, 2003 and at no point of time was the department specifically aware that the unit was carrying out textile process by decatising and calendaring during March, 2002. Therefore, the assessee had suppressed the fact from department during the period 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ases. Chemphor Drugs & Liniments [1989 (40) E.L.T. 276 (SC)] Cosmic Dye Chem [1995 (75) E.L.T. 721 (SC)] Pushpam Pharmaceuticals [1995 (78) E.L.T. 401 (SC)] Singareni Colleries [1988 (37) E.L.T. 361 SRB] Padmini Products [1989 (43) E.L.T. 195 (SC)] The demands due in all the cases except Rajesh Exports are clearly barred by time. They are set aside including the penalty imposed. 7. The first issue in this matter is as to whether the process of decatising is a process of manufacture? The process of decatising has been explained by the Sasmira report who have clearly given an opinion that the process does not amount to the process of manufacture. The sasmira report is extracted, herein below : "M/s. The Bangalore Silk Saree Finishers Association have sought our opinion on whether process "Blowing" and "Decatising" are the same in meaning. Decating or Decatising are finishing processes used chiefly to improve fabric handle and appearance. It is carried out either as a batch process or as continuous process. The process involves blowing of steam through fabric wrapped on a perforated roller with a smooth cotton wrapper. The process of decating, decati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....department has clearly taken a stand that there was no levy of duty on this process in terms of the Notification No. 3/01, dated 1-3-2001 and Notification No. 6/02, dated 1-3-2002. No demands haye been raised for periods prior to 1-3-2002. The dispute has arisen only after 1-3-2002. In the budget 2002-03, the woven fabrics falling under Chapter 54 or 55 subjected to the process of calendaring and decatising or both on job work basis in a factory were brought under Excise with effect from 1-3-02 by withdrawing the exemptions. The Notification No. 14/02, dated 1-3-2002 levied duty at 12%. However, this notification was amended by Notification No. 40/02, dated 14-8-2002 by which an explanation was inserted. The demands are restricted to interregnum period from 1-3-2002 to 31-8-2003 in some cases. From the periods as mentioned in the chart extracted (supra), it is seen that the process of decatising/calendaring was exempted under Notification No. 3/01, dated 1-3-2001 and Notification No. 47/02. The contention is that the Notification No. 47/02 is clarificatory in nature having retrospective effect from 1-3-2002 and also Notification 40/02, dated 14-8-2002 which inserted an explanation ....