Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2014 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (8) TMI 812 - AT - Central ExciseExemption under Notification No.40/1995-CE - appellant in their padding process had also used Urea Formaldehyde, Copper Sulphate, Tinopal and Blue Acid Violet - penalty under Rule 173Q (1) - Held that:- Notification No.40/1995-CE exempts "the cotton fabrics subjected to the process of padding, that is to say applying starch or fatty materials on one or both sides of the fabrics". The appellant in this case subjected the cotton fabrics to the process of padding in which in addition to the starch and Polyvinyl acetate, they also used Soap Stone Powder, Urea Formaldehyde, Copper Sulphate/Blue Acid Violet and Tinopal. The Blue Acid Violet, Copper Sulphate and Tinopal are used for padding of the bleached fabrics. The Department's contention is that since Notification No.40/1995-CE exempts only the padding done by applying starch or fatty materials on one or both the sides of the fabrics, use of other chemicals like Urea Formaldehyde, Tinopal, Copper Sulphate etc. would result in above exemption Notification becoming inapplicable. However, the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Coimbatore vs. Coimbatore Pioneer Mills (2008 (3) TMI 210 - CESTAT, CHENNAI) and Amar Processors vs. CCE, Ahmedabad-I (2010 (4) TMI 519 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD) and also in the case of CCE, Coimbatore vs. SSM Processing Mills reported in [2008 (2) TMI 292 - CESTAT, CHENNAI] has held that the process of padding does not amount to manufacture, as it brings only a temporary stiffness to fabric which vanishes after a couple of washes and, as such, it does not bring into existence a new product with distinct name, characteristic and uses. When the process of padding was held to be non-amounting to manufacture, no excise duty would be attracted and, as such, there is no question of denial of any exemption. Decided in favour of assessee.
|