2011 (2) TMI 180

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cked. The question is, is the Assessee manufacturing; is it liable to pay excise duty under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (the Act). 2. The Assessee filed a declaration of classification with effect from 15-5-1995 under sub-heading 6001.11 and 6001.12 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (the Tariff Act). The goods of the Assessee were approved under sub-heading 6001.12 and were charged to duty @ 10% under Notification No. 47/95 dated 16-3-1995. 3. Subsequently, the Assesse filed a representation dated 8-11-1995 and requested that the commodity be treated as exempt from the excise duty as the processes undertaken by it did not amount to manufacture. 4. The adjudicating officer by his order dated 21-3-1996 held that the excise duty ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n the Tariff Act. 9. According to the Tribunal, the following three processes are carried out by the Assessee : (i) back coating of the fabric with acrylic emulsion; (ii) shearing or cropping; and (iii) electrifying polish, carried on silver knitted or yarn gray fabrics. The question is, do they amount to manufacturer. 10. It is accepted between the parties that the commodity is covered by chapter 60 of the first schedule, under sub-heading 6001.12. Chapter 60 is titled 'knitted or crocheted fabrics'. The heading 60.01 is titled as; 'Pile fabrics, including "Long pile" fabrics and terry fabrics, knitted or crocheted'. 11. 'Long pile' fabric is further sub-divided. The sub-heading 6001.12 under this and is titled 'Of man-mad....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....;   The Assessee was back coating the fabrics with acrylic emulsion that was water based and they were required to be dried; *       This back coating was akin to stentering; and *       This process was amounting to manufacturing within the meaning of note 4 of Chapter 60 of the Tariff Act. 18. The impugned order of the Tribunal in the case is based upon the decision of Special bench in the Maharashtra-Fur case that was overruled by the Supreme Court. The Impugned order cannot stand. 19. The counsel for the Assessee has brought our notice the following observations of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh v. Shital International, (2011)....