Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2017 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (2) TMI 1058 - CESTAT MUMBAIBenefit of N/N. 76/1986-CE dated 10.2.1986 - manufacture of readymade garments falling under Chapter 6201 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 - denial on the ground that for the manufacture of readymade garments machines were used - whether the goods can be classified as handicrafts or not so as to avail benefit of Notification - Held that: - The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Louis Shoppe [1995 (3) TMI 108 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] has held that even if some machine is used in the process, the goods would still be treated as handicrafts and that handmade readymade garments would be treated as handicraft and accordingly eligible for exemption under N/N. 76/86. Board s Circular No. 773/6/04-CX dated 28.1.2004, clarified that classifying the goods as handicraft one or more of the process such as hand painting or hand printing or handicrafts Tie and Dye or handicrafts Batik, embroidered or crocheted ornamentation, appliqui work of sequins, glass or wooden beads, shells, mirrors or Ornamental motifs of textiles and other materials, extra warp/wept ornamentation of cotton, silk, zari (metal thread in Gold/Silver) wool or any other fibre yarn can be carried out. In the facts of the present case, except the part of the embroidery process, which was carried through pedal operated machine, most of the processes such as painting/ornamentation was done manually. Hence the goods is correctly classifiable as handicrafts - benefit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|