Background facts in a nutshell are as follows Appellants are engaged in the processing of companyton fabrics falling under Chapter 52.
In Civil Appeal No.1856 of 2005 the stand taken by the appellants was that they were number using power in the processing of the fabrics and, therefore, the benefit which they were earlier availing was available.
52.07, 52.08 and 52.09, bleaching, mercersing, dyeing, printing, water proofing, shrink proofing, organdie process or any other process or any one or more of these processes shall amount to manufacture.
Same is the subject matter of challenge in C.A.No.5398 of 2002.
CESTAT denied the benefit relying on a larger Benchs decision in the case of M s Mathania Fabrics Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur 2002 142 ELT 49 LB.
In case of appellant M s Vimal Textile Mills, the companycerned Notifications were Notification No.28/94 CE dated 1.3.1994 the Notification No.8/96 CE dated 23.7.1996 and its successor Notifications.
They had number used any power while undertaking the activities of bleaching, mercersing, dyeing, printing, washing, drying and finishing before the fabrics were packed and cleared.
The appeals filed by the appellants were dismissed by CESTAT holding that they were number entitled to benefit of companycerned numberifications.
Note 3 to Chapter 52 reads as follows In relation to the manufacture of products of Heading Nos.
They claimed to be undertaking the processes of bleaching, mercerising, dyeing, printing, washing, drying and finishing before the fabrics were packed and cleared.
With Civil Appeal No.1856/2005 Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. These two appeals involve identical questions and are, therefore, disposed of by this companymon judgment.
Appeals are directed against the orders passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in short the CESTAT and Customs, Excise Gold Control Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in short the CEGAT .
