TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1984 (3) TMI 385
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....82 and that they were not entitled to exemption in terms of Notification No. 130/82-C.E., dated 20-4-1982. 2. The aforesaid notification exempts cotton fabrics falling under Item 19-I of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule from basic excise duty and also excise duty under the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance tance) Act, 1957, subject to certain conditions. The material conditions are the following:- (1) the fabrics should be processed without the aid of power or steam; and (2) they should not have been subjected to the process of bleaching, dyeing or printing with the aid of machines. (However, the second disqualification would apply only if the quantity of fabrics falling within this category exceeds....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a argued that the appellants were processing cotton fabrics. The processes carried out were bleaching and dyeing. No power or steam or machine was used in the process of bleaching. In the process of dyeing, no power or steam was used. A jigger was used, but according to him the jigger was not a machine. In this connection, Shri Gupta cited the following definitions of "jigger" and "machine" :- Jigger : Any appliance or mechanical device, a contraption (page 268-Webster's Universal Dictionary). Jigger (Mech) : A mechanism which operates with quick up and down motion, a jolting device, a Potter's wheel (page 231-/Dictionary of Technical Terms-11th Edition, by F.S. Cripsin) Machine ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... have been using a jigger only for the purpose of dyeing, the effect of this notification was that, even on the view taken by the Department that a jigger was a machine, they did not attract the disqualification in the notification. The Department also appears to have accepted this position with effect from 18-6-1982. In the memorandum of appeal a ground has been advanced that Notification No. 194/82 should be considered as only clarifying Notification No. 130/82, and that the benefit given to the appellants in view of Notification No. 194/82 should have been given to them from the beginning. This argument, which is tantamount to saying that Notification No. 194/82 should apply retrospectively, obviously has little force, and Shri Gupta did....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The roller B is rotated with help of handle E. The cloth keeps on wrapping on roller B after passing through colour solution and under thin rollers at the bottom which act as pulley for cloth. The roller C rotates automatically due to tension in cloth i.e. cloth itself acts as a rotating belt for Roller C and thin rollers placed at bottom act as pulley for the cloth. This process is repeated till the cloth is dyed to desired fastness of colour. For the easy motion of rollers - Ball bearings are installed on the axles of rollers, which reduces the friction and hence more work can be done by applying less energy. Thus manual energy is transformed into Mechanical energy through Jigger, hence Jigger is a machine as per definition of mac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the notification need not be worked by power or steam; otherwise, there would have been no need, after the first condition referred to in para 2 above, to impose a second condition. The argument of the appellants really amounts be saying that such a simple contrivance as a jigger cannot be regarded as a machine, and that a machine has to be something complex. We are unable to accept this view. No doubt the machines which we ordinarily come across are somewhat complex articles. But if one looks at the definitions given by the appellants themselves, it would be clear that a machine need not necessarily be complex. Thus, the first definition given by them reads as "a device for transformation or transferring energy". In the present case what ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... meant to facilitate easy motion of the rollers. The jigger cannot therefore be considered as an altogether simple contrivance. But even otherwise, as we have already observed, it is not necessary that a machine should be a complex article. In fact, the classic examples of a machine, such as a lever or a pulley, or even a wedge, are actually referred to as "simple machines". In the present case there is in fact a pulley arrangement by which the revolution of one roller with the aid of a handle results in the revolution of two other rollers. We therefore find it established beyond any doubt that the jigger used by the appellants was a machine and that accordingly the interpretation adopted by the Additional Collector was correct. 11.&emsp....