Bombay Fibre Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 7283 of 1995
Petitioner: Bombay Fibre Industries Ltd.
Respondent: Collector of Central Excise, Bombay
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 7283 of 1995
Judges: A.M. AHMADI, C.J. & SUJATA V. MANOHAR, J.
Date of Judgment: May 01, 1996
Head Note:
EXCISE
Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944
Section 2 (f) and Circular No. 40/2/95 dated 13.1.1995 – Garnetting – Tribunal not noticing either the circular or its own earlier decision. Held that matter requires reconsideration. Hence, orders set-aside and remitted back for fresh decision.
Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944
Section 2 (f) and Circular No. 40/2/95 dated 13.1.1995 – Garnetting – Tribunal not noticing either the circular or its own earlier decision. Held that matter requires reconsideration. Hence, orders set-aside and remitted back for fresh decision.
Cases Reffered:
1. Bombay Fibre Industries Ltd. v. CCE, (1996) 83 ELT 465 (CEGAT)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal dated 17-5-1995. The question for consideration was whether garnetting, i.e., the process of recovering fibres from hard twisted thread, washing, sorting, cutting, carding, orientation of fibres and combing amounts to manufacture. The Tribunal has answered the question in the affirmative departing from its earlier view which it seems to have omitted to notice. It has also omitted to notice the Board’s Circular No. 40/2/95-CS dated 13-1-1995 wherein it is stated:
“The Board is, therefore, of the view that the process of gar-netting and/or carding of duty-paid waste of filaments/waste of staple fibres falling under Chapters 54 and 55 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 do not amount to manufacture within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944”.
In view of the same it seems obvious that the order of the Trib-unal requires reconsideration. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order of the Tribunal and remit the matter back to the Tribunal for disposal in accordance with law after hearing the counsel for the parties. There will be no order as to costs.
1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal dated 17-5-1995. The question for consideration was whether garnetting, i.e., the process of recovering fibres from hard twisted thread, washing, sorting, cutting, carding, orientation of fibres and combing amounts to manufacture. The Tribunal has answered the question in the affirmative departing from its earlier view which it seems to have omitted to notice. It has also omitted to notice the Board’s Circular No. 40/2/95-CS dated 13-1-1995 wherein it is stated:
“The Board is, therefore, of the view that the process of gar-netting and/or carding of duty-paid waste of filaments/waste of staple fibres falling under Chapters 54 and 55 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 do not amount to manufacture within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944”.
In view of the same it seems obvious that the order of the Trib-unal requires reconsideration. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order of the Tribunal and remit the matter back to the Tribunal for disposal in accordance with law after hearing the counsel for the parties. There will be no order as to costs.
