TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2000 (6) TMI 799
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xempted cotton fabrics when subjected to processes specified therein from payment of duty. Notification 80/76 is reproduced below before its amendment: "In exercise of the powers conferred by sub rule (1) of rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Central Government hereby exempts cotton fabrics, falling under sub-item 1 (2) of Item No 19 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (1 of 1944), when subjected to the finishing processes specified in column (2) of the Table hereto annexed, from the whole of the entry in duty of excise leviable thereon subject to the conditions laid down in the corresponding column (3) of the said Table. THE TABLE S. No Description Conditions (1) (2) (3) 1.(....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... starch on one or both sides of the fabric. 2.  Notification 120/76 was identically worded except that it granted exemption, not to the basic duty but the additional duty of excise leviable under the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957. Both these notifications were amended on 24-11-1979, by the addition of the following proviso : "Provided that no such exemption shall apply- (i) if unprocessed cotton fabrics falling under sub-item 1(a) of the said Item No 11 on which the duty of excise is leviable either in whole or in part, are subjected to any process or processes specified in the said Table, within the factory in which the said unp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n will not apply. 5. It is further contended that even on the assumption that they are the same factory any other processes referred to in the proviso to the notification has to be processes akin to the processes specified in the Table to the notification. The processes on account of which the benefit has been denied are not so akin. Therefore, the benefit of the notification cannot be denied. 6.  The argument of the advocate first aimed on the Collector's conclusion that all the units were in fact one factory. It is contended that each of the units had a separate existence in identity, they came into existence on a different time by one set of people and it has not been shown that they were all owned by Podar. Therefore....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n that it was carried out with the aid of power, is calendering. Calendering with the aid of plain rolling has been held not to be a process of manufacture by the Supreme Court in Mafatlal Spinning & Weaving Mills v. CCE - 1989 (40) E.L.T. 218. The Supreme Court also accepted, after considering the process that calendering plain rollers was a temporary process, giving the calendered fabrics smooth and lusturous surface. This is done by flatening the round yarn which composed the fabric, so that they reflect a greater amount of light. However, this finishing is temporary. The yarn reverts to its round shape on steaming, or laundering. This ratio has been followed by the Tribunal in Sidheshwari Cotton Fabrics v. CCE - 1989 (44) E.L.T. 157. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....no longer carrying out any kering (sic) operations. The keiring boilers installed in this unit had been dismantled by this time were no longer in operation. The basis for this claim is the statement of KI Vyas dated 21-4-1983, manager of Natwar Textile Processors Pvt. Ltd. had said in his statement that although there were seven keirs installed in Super Bleaching Works, the keiring operation was stopped from 3-4-1982, whereafter the firms switched over to a process of cold bleach. He said that the seven keirs were dismantled and kept out of use till 7-8-1982. They were thereafter "scrapped out". This statement was recorded considerable period before the issue of the show cause notice on 28-12-1983. There is no material advanced in the show ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the same compound, was a proprietory concern of "N Podar" and engaged in singeing, kiering, scouring and hydro extraction. The notice thereafter gives the details obtained from persons purportedly in charge of all the units, except Navneet Manufacturing Company, as a basis for alleging that these units were part of Natwar Textile Processors Pvt. Ltd. It refers to enquiries with the banks account with regard to the six units, summons issued to various persons in these six units etc. Paragraph 15 of the notice, the allegation is that the six proprietory concerns in which Navneet Manufacturing Company, is not included, a paper creation of Natwar Textile Processors Pvt. Ltd. 12. The omission of Navneet Manufacturing Company, both from ....