Collector of Central Excise Vs. Uma Dyeing and Printing Mills

Collector of Central Excise vs Uma Dyeing and Printing Mills

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Apr 24, 1998

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/13330

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/13330
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided On: Apr 24, 1998
Subject: Service Tax

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Service Tax

Key legal issue: Service Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Collector of Central Excise

Respondent

Uma Dyeing and Printing Mills

Legal References

Reported In: (1998)(104)ELT74TriDel

Excerpt

.....of kier machine was an exempted process.5. the process of scouring is a process of washing with hot water and soap and other detergents or with alkali solutions. in the bleaching kier, the steam is used and the process is done under pressure. in fact, scouring does not bring into existence any new commodity. in the case of punjab wool combers ltd. v. cce, chandigarh, the tribunal under order nos. e/186-187/94-d, dated 6-4-1994 [1994 (71) e.l.t. 844 (tribunal)] in appeal nos. e/1028 and e/1043/86-d had agreed with the views of the appellants that the process of removal of greasy matter with hot water soap did not bring about any kind of transformation. in the present case, however/ we find that the kier machine has been used and the process has been undertaken by adding bleaching agents in the kier.6. the respondents had argued that as a result of scouring in kier machine, the fabric is partially bleached. we find that the bleaching is a dutiable process and there is no distinction between the partial bleaching and full bleaching. the various processes listed in the notification no. 253/82-c.e. are in the nature of minor processes, which had been exempted with the condition that no other processes other than the one listed in the table under that notification has been undertaken.7. on going through the facts on record, we find that the process undertaken by the respondents was a process of bleaching through the kier machine in which various bleaching agents have been used and thus, the same were not covered by the exemption under notification no.283/82-c.e.8. notification no. 80/76-c.e., dated 16-3-1976 had been superseded by the notification involved with the present proceedings i.e.notification no. 253/82-c.e.9. taking all the relevant facts and considerations into account, we do not agree with the views taken by the ld. collector of central excise (appeals) in these proceedings. we set aside the same and restore the order-in-original. as a result, the appeal.....

Full Judgment

1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the Order-in-Appeal No.AMP-161/B. III-91/88, dated 1-6-1988 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay is under challenge. The matter relates to the eligibility of the cotton fabrics subjected to the processes through the machine known as Kier under Notification No. 253/82- C.E., dated 8-11-1982. The Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Kalyan, Bombay had held that the processes undertaken by the assessee was not a process of scouring but was a process of bleaching which was not eligible for the benefit of exemption under the said Notification. On appeal, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay observed that as the assessee was only doing the process of scouring, the goods in question were eligible for exemption even when Kier was used.

2. The matter was posted for hearing on 24-4-1998. Shri Satnam Singh, SDR is present for the appellants/Revenue. When the case were called, none appeared on behalf of the respondents, M/s. Uma Dyeing & Printing Mills. Notice for today's hearing had been issued to the respondents on 17-3-1998. As it is an old matter in which the show cause notice was issued as early as in the year 1982, we are proceeding to deal with the matter on merits after hearing Shri Satnam Singh, SDR.3. We have carefully considered the matter. It is seen from the order passed by the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Kalyan that the assessee was carrying out the processes through the Kier machine in which bleaching powder, peroxides alongwith other chemicals in certain quantities to get better results and efficiency were used. The respondents have called these processes as partial bleaching. The adjudicating authority had observed that as in the present case, the processes for partial bleaching was undertaken by adding bleaching agents. Exemption was not applicable.

4. We find that the ld. Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay had not discussed the use of bleaching agent in the Kier machine and had only decided the matter on the ground that the process of scouring even when done with the aid of Kier machine was an exempted process.

5. The process of scouring is a process of washing with hot water and soap and other detergents or with alkali solutions. In the bleaching Kier, the steam is used and the process is done under pressure. In fact, scouring does not bring into existence any new commodity. In the case of Punjab Wool Combers Ltd. v. CCE, Chandigarh, the Tribunal under Order Nos. E/186-187/94-D, dated 6-4-1994 [1994 (71) E.L.T. 844 (Tribunal)] in Appeal Nos. E/1028 and E/1043/86-D had agreed with the views of the appellants that the process of removal of greasy matter with hot water soap did not bring about any kind of transformation. In the present case, however/ we find that the Kier machine has been used and the process has been undertaken by adding bleaching agents in the Kier.

6. The respondents had argued that as a result of scouring in Kier machine, the fabric is partially bleached. We find that the bleaching is a dutiable process and there is no distinction between the partial bleaching and full bleaching. The various processes listed in the Notification No. 253/82-C.E. are in the nature of minor processes, which had been exempted with the condition that no other processes other than the one listed in the table under that Notification has been undertaken.

7. On going through the facts on record, we find that the process undertaken by the respondents was a process of bleaching through the Kier machine in which various bleaching agents have been used and thus, the same were not covered by the exemption under Notification No.283/82-C.E.8. Notification No. 80/76-C.E., dated 16-3-1976 had been superseded by the Notification involved with the present proceedings i.e.

Notification No. 253/82-C.E.9. Taking all the relevant facts and considerations into account, we do not agree with the views taken by the ld. Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) in these proceedings. We set aside the same and restore the Order-in-Original. As a result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed. Ordered accordingly.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Collector of Central Excise vs Uma Dyeing and Printing Mills Same Subject Service Tax