Collector of Central Excise Vs. Simplex Mills Co.

Collector of Central Excise vs Simplex Mills Co.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Jul 07, 1998

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/13801

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/13801
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided On: Jul 07, 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

Simplex Mills Co.

Advocate Shri. M.H. Patel

Legal References

Reported In: (1998)(104)ELT435TriDel

Excerpt

.....of unformulated, unstandardised or unprepared dyes into formulated, standardised or prepared form ready for use in the process of dyeing by reduction of any particle size, addition of dispersing agents or diluents, alone shall amount to manufacture. the respondents had contended that they had purchased duty paid standardised, formulated dyes and prepared it by mixing various ingredients together to form a readily useable paste.the lower appellate authority has applied note 6 to chapter 32 and has set aside the order of the assistant collector, allowing the appeal "subject to the condition that what was received by the textile mills was in fact formulated, standardised or prepared dyes and that the process involved was not other than any of those specified in the order of the cbec dated 21-4-1993".2. we have heard shri a.k. madan, learned sdr and shri m.h. patel, learned counsel for the respondent.3. we find that in the appeal memorandum and the grounds of appeal, the challenge is only on the ground that the collector (appeals) has passed a vague conditional order which is devoid of any meaning. there is no challenge to the merits of the matter regarding the applicability of note 6 to chapter 32. our understanding of the collector (appeals) order is that he has remanded the matter for verification as to whether what was received by the various textile mills, who are the respondents before us was formulated, standardised or prepared dyes and for verification as to whether the processes adopted by the various respondents were covered by the cbec order dated 21-4-1993 which states that "printing paste prepared from formulated, standardised or prepared dyes, by simply mixing other materials shall not amount to manufacture and as such not be classifiable under sub-heading 3204.29 of the tariff". it is certainly open to him to have remanded the matter for verification of the aspects mentioned above and we do not agree with the revenue that he has passed a vague.....

Full Judgment

1. The respondents herein are engaged in the making of printing paste.

The Department was of the view that the printing paste made by the respondents was a manufactured commodity classifiable under sub-heading 3204.29 of the Schedule to the CETA, 1985, by application of Note 6 to Chapter 32, according to which conversion of unformulated, unstandardised or unprepared dyes into formulated, standardised or prepared form ready for use in the process of dyeing by reduction of any particle size, addition of dispersing agents or diluents, alone shall amount to manufacture. The respondents had contended that they had purchased duty paid standardised, formulated dyes and prepared it by mixing various ingredients together to form a readily useable paste.

The lower appellate authority has applied Note 6 to Chapter 32 and has set aside the order of the Assistant Collector, allowing the appeal "subject to the condition that what was received by the Textile Mills was in fact formulated, standardised or prepared dyes and that the process involved was not other than any of those specified in the order of the CBEC dated 21-4-1993".

2. We have heard Shri A.K. Madan, learned SDR and Shri M.H. Patel, learned Counsel for the respondent.

3. We find that in the appeal memorandum and the grounds of appeal, the challenge is only on the ground that the Collector (Appeals) has passed a vague conditional order which is devoid of any meaning. There is no challenge to the merits of the matter regarding the applicability of Note 6 to Chapter 32. Our understanding of the Collector (Appeals) order is that he has remanded the matter for verification as to whether what was received by the various textile mills, who are the respondents before us was formulated, standardised or prepared dyes and for verification as to whether the processes adopted by the various respondents were covered by the CBEC order dated 21-4-1993 which states that "printing paste prepared from formulated, standardised or prepared dyes, by simply mixing other materials shall not amount to manufacture and as such not be classifiable under sub-heading 3204.29 of the Tariff". It is certainly open to him to have remanded the matter for verification of the aspects mentioned above and we do not agree with the Revenue that he has passed a vague order. In this view of the matter, we see no reason to interfere with the order and accordingly uphold the same and reject the appeal.

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