COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BOMBAYversusMAHARASHTRA FUR FABRICS LIMITED

A               COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BOMBAY
                                          v.
                  MAHARASHTRA FUR FABRICS LIMITED

                              SEPTEMBER 24, 2002

B       (SYED SHAH MOHD. QUADRI AND Y.K. SABHARWAL, JJ.]


          Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985:

            Schedule-Heading No. 60.01-Assessee manufacturing high fur fabrics
C   by silver knitting process-Item classified by assessee under Heading 60.01-
    Exemption from excise duty claimed under Notification No. 10911986-C.E.
    dated 27.2.1986 as amended by Notification No. 311988-C.E. dated
    19. I. 1988-Proviso to Notification excluding silver pile fabrics falling under
    Heading 58. 0 l or 60. 0 I if the product is subjected to process of bleaching,
D   dyeing, printing, shrink proofing, /entering, heat-setting, crease-resistant
    processing or any other process-Assessee 's stand that the item had to be
    dried by merely passing it through hot air stenter, the process did not amount
    to stentering-Tribunal upholding the claim of assessee-Held, the process
    adopted by the assessee is analogous to stentering as, admittedly, the fabric
    is dried by passing it through hot air stenter-Applying the rule of ejusdem
E   generis the words "or any other process" would have to be understood in
    the same sense in which the process including /entering would be
    understood-Thus a process akin to stentering/tentering would fall within
    the meaning of the proviso and the benefit of the Notification cannot be
    availed by the respondent-Interpretation of Statutes-Principle of ejusdem
F   generis.

          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 685of1995.

         From the Judgment and Order dated 29.4.1994 of the C.E.G.A.T. in Order
    No. EJ254!95-D in Appeal No. E/4217/90-D.
G         K. Swami,· K.C. Kaushik and B. Krishna Prasad, for the Appellant.

         ·Joseph Vellapally, Rajan Narain, Ms. Sonu Bhatnagar and Ajay Aggarwal
    for the Respondent.

          The following Order of the Court was delivered :
H                                         544
              C.C. ~· v. MAHARASIHRA FUR FABRICS LTD.                      545

      This appeal is filed by th~ CQll11ctor of Central Excise, Sombay against A
the order, No. E/254/94-D, oflhll Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate
Tribunal in Appeal No, !;;/4217190·0 dated 29th April, 1994. By the impugned
order, the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (for short,
'the Tribunal') set aside the order of the Collector (Appeals), Bombay, aff11111ing
the order of the Assistant Collector holding that the respondent is entitled
to the benefit QfNotiflcation No, 109/1986-C.E. dated 27th February, 1986, as B
amended by Notification No. 3/1988-c.E. dated 19th January, 1988 (for short,
'the Notification'),

      The question th11t arises for consideration is: whether the respondent
is cover11d by the proviso inserted in the notification?                         C
      The respondent-assessee manufactures high fur fabrics by silver knitting
process. In Classification List No. 1/1987 dated I0th March, 1987 filed by the
respondent, t.he product was classified under Heading 60.01 and benefit of the
said notification was claimed attracting 'nil' rate of duty. There is no dispute
that the respondent was entitled to the exemption granted under the said D
notification till 19th January, 1988 when the proviso was inserted therein.

     It would be useful to read Notification No. I 09/1986-C.E. dated 27th
Fabruary, 1986, as amended by Notification No. 3/1988-C.E. dated 19th January,
1988 here:
                                                                                 E
       "In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (I) of rule 8 of the
       Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the
       Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957
       (58 3f 1957), the Central Government hereby exempts woven pile
       fabrics and chenil fabrics, tufted textile fabrics and knitted or crocheted
       fabrics falling under Heading No. 58.01 or 60.01 of the Schedule to the F
       Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5of1957) as is in excess of the duty
       of excise and the additional duty of excise leviable under the aforesaid
       two Acts on the corresponding woven fabrics falling under Chapter
       51, 52, 53, S4 or 55 of the said Schedule, read with any notification for
       the time being in force.                                                    G
            Provided that nothing contained in this notification, shall apply.
        to knitted or crocheted fabrics of man-made textile materials falling
        under sub-heading No. 6001.12 of the said Schedule and subjected to
        the process of bleaching, dyeing, printing shrink-proofing, tentering,
        heat-setting, crease resistant processing or any other process or any H
    546                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2002] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A           two or more of these processes.

            Explanation:-For the purpose of this notification, the expression,
            'corresponding woven fabrics' means fabrics specified in Chapter 51,
            52, 53, 54 or 55 which corresponds to knitted or crocheted fabrics with
            reference to the processes carried out thereon, or the value of the
B           fabric per square meter or the textile material contained therein. 1

            2. This notification shall come into force on the 28th day of February,
            1986."

          The notification discloses that the benefit available to sliver pile fabrics
C falling under Heading 58.01 or 60.01 of the Schedule to the Central Excise
    Tariff Act, 1985 is lost if the product is subjected to the process of bleaching,
    dyeing, printing, shrink proofing, !entering, heat-setting, crease-resistant
    processing or any other process or any two or more of these processes.

          A careful reading of the proviso to the notification would show that by
D resorting not only to the process of bleaching, dyeing, printing, shrink
  proofing, tentering, heat-setting, crease-resistant processing, but also to "any
  other process or any two or more of th~se processes", the respondent would
  lose the benefit of the exemption. It is a well established principle that general
  terms following particular expressions take their colour and meaning as that
E of the preceding expressions, applying the principle of ejusdem generis rule,
  therefore, in construing the words "or an other process," the import of the
  specific expressions will have to be kept in mind. It follows that the words
  "or any other process" would h4ve to be understood in the same sense in
  which the pr?cess, including !entering, would be understood. T~s understood,
  a process akin to stentering/tentering would fall within the meaning of the
F proviso and, consequently, the benefit of the notification cannot be availed
  by the respondent.

         In the reply to show cause notice issued by the Assistant Collector,
   Central Excise, panvel Division, the respondent stated, "the acrylic emulsion
 • is water based and 'hence the fabric has to be dried. For this purpose, it is
G passed through hot air stenter." The respondent sought to explain this with
   reference to the certificates given by the manufacturer of the machine to say
   that the process Joes not amount to stentering.

          The Assistant Collector found that the respondent was using the
H process of stentering. On appeal, the Collector (Appeals), having inspected
             C.C.E. v. MAH.'.RASHTRf, FlJR FADRICS LTD.                     547
the manufacturing process in the factory of the respondent, affirmed the view       A
of the Assistant Collector that stentering process was being restored to by
the respondent. However, on further appeal by the respondent, the Tribunal,
after referring to the expert opinion and the dictionary meaning of the words
"stentering" and "!entering" held that no process of stentering/tentering is
being carried out.
                                                                                    B
      Even accepting the Tribunal's finding that the process does not strictly
amount to stentiring, it cannot be disputed that the process adopted by the
respondent is analogous to stentering, as admittedly, the respondent is drying
the fabric by passing through the hot air stenter.

      In this view of the matter, the proviso clearly applies and the respondent,
                                                                                    c
therefore, is not entitled to the benefit of the notification. The order under
appeal is set aside.

      The civil appeal is, accordingly, allowed. In the facts and circumstances
of the case, we make no order as to costs.                                      D
RP.                                                            Appeal allowed.