Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1995 (5) TMI 178

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ms 19 (iii) and 22(3) of 1st Schedule to the then Central Excise Tariff. 2. The impregnated, coated or laminated fabrics based on cotton fabrics or man-made fabrics (popularly known as Leather Cloth) are further subjected to the process of design printing wherever required. The initial duty liability under Tariff Items 19(iii) and 22(3) has been discharged and the dispute is as regards dutiability on process of printing done on such Leather Cloth. The Assistant Collector as well as Collector (Appeals) treated the process of printing as a process incidental or ancillary to the process of manufacture product, and held that the impregnated/processed cloth if cleared after printing then duty will be again charged accordingly under item 19(iii .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... f the printing or embossing. They have, further, contended that since the goods as PVC Leather Cloth are already marketed as such, the other processes cannot be regarded as ancillary or incidental to the completion of the manufacture of the product PVC Leather Cloth. Yet another plea of the appellants is that as the PVC Leather Cloth has already discharged duty liability under Item 19 (iii) or 22 (3), it cannot again be subjected to duty under the same item. 3. Shri Mohan Lal, ld. J.D.R. contended that the process of printing and embossing on the PVC Leather Cloth would clearly be in the nature of the process incidental or ancillary to the completion of the manufacture of the embossed leather cloth. He relied upon the Supreme Court judgme .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... cloth has fully discharged the duty liability under item 19 (iii) and 22(3), it cannot again be subjected to duty under the same tariff item for the process of printing. Examining these contentions, it is seen that the definition of manufacture under Sec. 2(f) of Central Excises Salt Act, 1944 (as it stood at the relevant time) is an inclusive definition which says, manufacture includes any process incidental or ancillary to the completion of a manufactured product and goes on to list certain specific processes which will amount to manufacture in respect of certain items in the tariff. The appellants, while heavily relying upon the sub-clauses (v) and (vii) thereto which cover only goods falling under item 19I and 22 (1), are overlooki .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... fabrics is well-founded. As for their other argument that laminated fabrics having discharged duty cover under item 19 (iii) or 22(3) cannot be subjected to duty again, it may be observed that a similar argument had been repelled by the Supreme Court in the case of Laminated Packings v. Collector of Central Excise - 1990 (49) E.L.T. 326 (SC) = 1990 (30) ECR 166. The Supreme Court observed, Counsel for the appellant sought to contend that the kraft paper was duty paid goods and there was no change is the essential characteristic or use of the paper after lamination. The fact that duty has been duty paid on the kraft paper is irrelevant for the consideration of the issue before us. If duty has been paid, then benefit or credit for the duty .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates