JUDGMENT
Manmohan Sarin, J.
1. Petitioner in the present writ petition
seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated
12.5.1970, passed by the Collector of Central Excise,
dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner
against the order bearing No. V(19)30-85/66/27238 dated
31.8.1966, passed by the Assistant Collector of Central
Excise, Bombay, Division-I and orders,
No. 1029/69/Tracing cloth dated 23.1.1969 and No. 69/1774
dated 13.2.1969 against the orders passed by the
Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Bombay
Division-I.
2. Petitioner also seeks the quashing of
the order dated 14.1.1975, passed by the Revisional
Authority, dismissing the revision preferred by the
petitioner against the order of the Collector of
Excise, referred to earlier. Petitioner also seeks in
the writ petition the refund of the excise duty
amounting to Rs. 3,42,687/-, stated to have been paid
under protest.
3. Petitioner is a company incorporated and
engaged in the manufacture of tracing cloth as an end
product. Petitioner’s case is that the said tracing
cloth is exigible to excise duty as a “bleached cotton
fabric” while the Excise Authorities are assessing the
same as “fabric processed in any other manner under
item 19” of the first Schedule of the Central Excises
and Salt Act. The tracing cloth was earlier exempted
from levy of excise duty, vide a notification dated
5.1.1957. This exemption is stated to have been
withdrawn w.e.f. 5.6.1965 vide notification No. 88/65.
The case of the petitioner is that the tracing cloth is
plain weave cloth of bleached variety. It is neither
mercerized nor sanforised. It is also not treated with
Chemicals like acid. Accordingly, the petitioner’s
claim is that it should be assessed to duty at the rate
applicable to bleached variety of cotton fabric and not
at the rate applicable to fabric under Tariff entry 19.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner in
support of the writ petition submitted that the
conclusion reached by the Excise Authorities that the
bleached cotton fabric was to be treated as cotton
fabric processed in any other manner was based on a
mis-conception and mis-interpretation of the existing
notification and on a mis-understanding of the process
involved.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that manufacture of super fine grey fabric is
an intermediate stage in the making of tracing cloth as
an end product. It was claimed that the superfine grey
cloth is first stitched from end to end. Thereafter,
the grey cloth was bleached by a) shearing and cropping
of loose ends b) singeing of the surface of the cloth,
c) desizing that is to say removing starch, d) washing e)
kier boiling which makes the grey cloth partly white
and f) by passing it through a continuous junction box
which renders the grey cloth completely white.
Thereafter the cloth is dried on a hot air stenter
machine, the object being to eliminate the crease and
to bring the cloth to correct width. It is then put
through padding machine, wherein the cloth is passed
through the finishing mixture on the side containing
starches and softeners like wax emulsion. The cloth is
thereafter damped and friction calendered on
calendering rollers. The friction calendering is done
with very heavy pressure at a very slow speed to fill
up the pores. When the calendering process is on, the
cloth unwinds at the out let end. On the completion of
this process the cloth (rolled on the rollers) is kept
aside to cool down. The next day it is again dampened
with water at somewhat lower pressure. Thereafter,
once more it is put through the above described
calendering process. The calendering process is
repeated until the pores are filled up and until the
temporary lustre and transparency are obtained. No
grooved rollers are used either during padding or
calendering process.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that tracing cloth served the same purpose as
tracing paper. On import, tracing cloth is assessed as
stationery. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the book binding cloth is not subjected to any
processing duty, while the process involved in making
book binding cloth was back filling, coating and
calendering on analogy and the tracing cloth should be
treated as not processed in any other manner. It is
claimed that the effect of bleaching the cloth is
transitory. It should be considered as processed cloth
only when permanent effect is left.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent,
Mr. Jayant Bhushan, refuting the submissions of the
petitioner has taken me through the revisional order.
He submits that it has been admitted by the petitioner
that during padding, starching, water, bleaching and
coating agents are used. As a result of the processing
done, the pores of the fabric are closed and it gets a
transparent appearance. The use of oil and other
materials make the fabric creaseless with smooth
surface. During the padding, the fabric is dipped in a
starch solution. He further submits that in the
process of padding for manufacture of tracing cloth
after application of liquor/paste the fabric is passed
through squeeze rollers to give finish and to leave no
pin-hole in the fabric after it is covered with a
coating. He submits that essentially what is referred
by the petitioner as “padding” is really one of
impregnation and its both sides are entirely covered
with the coating of the paste. The tracing cloth after
subjecting to the aforesaid process acquires a degree
of surface and translucency, which cannot come from
simple padding. Mr. Bhushan submits that in view of the
foregoing features, the view taken by the revisional
authorities that the fabric would fall within entry 19
under the classification fabric processed in any other
manner cannot be assailed to be either untenable or
based on mis-conception or mis-apprehension of the
process involved.
8. Mr. Bhushan submits that the process
carried out in the instant case is not simple padding
but entails other elements, as noticed above. He
further submits that in this case it is not simple
natural starch, which is applied as is done in simple
padding, but in this case a solution containing the
extricating oil is also used. He submits that the
process used is not simple calendering or padding but
there are other elements involved also and the
translucency, which is achieved of a permanent nature.
He submits that the mere fact that when dipped in
water, it may lose its translucency will note make it
less permanent in character. The repeated passing of
tracing cloth through the calendering with heavy
pressure at law speed is also not what is normally
known as the simple calendering process. Learned
counsel for the respondent submits that in the B.T.N.,
tracing cloth is classified n the same group heading
as book binding. This would not be determinative of
the matter, specially when there are distinct feature
of the process involved in making of the tracing paper.
9. In view of the distinct features and the
process, as discussed above, involved in making of the
tracing cloth, the concurrent view taken by the
authorities cannot be said to be not a plausible view.
Learned counsel for the respondent rightly submits that
this Court would not entertain the writ petition in
such circumstances to assail a concurrent view taken by
the revenue authorities, which is justified on the
basis of the process involved and the distinctive
features in the manufacture of tracing cloth, as
pointed out.
No ground is made out for interference in
writ jurisdiction. The writ petition has no merit and
is dismissed.