SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1976 Supreme(Ker) 116

Judges : V.BALAKRISHNA ERADI,G.VISWANATHA IYER
METRO READYWEAR COMPANY - Appellant
Versus
COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS - Respondent
Case No : O. P. No. 559 of 1973
Decided On : 07/16/1976
Advocates Appeared :
S. Easwara Iyer; E. Subramani; For Petitioner M. Ratnasingh; K. Prabhakaran; For Respondents

The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the definition of 'manufacture' under S.2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and the applicability of Item 22D of the First Schedule, specifically focusing on whether the process of ironing applied to the brassieres was incidental to their completion and carried out with the aid of power.

Headnote:

Central Excise Duty - Brassieres - S.110 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with S.12 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 - Item 22D of the First Schedule - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the applicability of Item 22D of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, which authorizes the levy of ad valorem duty on articles of ready-to-wear apparel, including undergarments and body supporting garments, in relation to the manufacture of which any process is ordinarily carried on with the aid of power. The court also interpreted the definition of 'manufacture' under S.2(f) of the Act, which includes any process incidental or ancillary to the completion of a manufactured product. The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of whether the process of ironing applied to the stitched brassieres can be regarded as incidental or ancillary to their completion, and whether it was carried out with the aid of power.

Fact of the Case:

The Metro Readywear Company, Palghat, a firm engaged in the manufacture of women's undergarments, sought to quash the seizure and detention of its stock of brassieres by Central Excise Officers, contending that the brassieres did not fall within the ambit of Item 22D of the First Schedule to the Act and hence did not require a license for manufacture.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the process of ironing applied to the stitched brassieres was incidental to their completion as a manufactured product and was carried out with the aid of power, thus attracting liability for payment of duty under Item 22D. As a result, the court dismissed the original petition.

Issues: The issues revolved around the applicability of Item 22D of the First Schedule to the Act, the definition of 'manufacture' under S.2(f), and whether the process of ironing applied to the brassieres was incidental or ancillary to their completion as a manufactured product.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the definition of 'manufacture' under S.2(f) and the applicability of Item 22D of the First Schedule, specifically focusing on whether the process of ironing applied to the brassieres was incidental to their completion and carried out with the aid of power.

Final Decision: The original petition was dismissed by the court without any order as to costs.

Judgment :-

1. The Metro Readywear Company, Palghat, which is a firm engaged in the business of manufacture of women's undergarments known as brassieres, is the writ petitioner before us. On 3 21973 a team of Central Excise Officers led by the Rang: Officer of Central Excise, Palghat (M.O.R) 2nd respondent inspected the business premises of the petitioner and seized the entire stock of brassieres consisting of 40800 numbers packed in 3400 boxes. Ext. P2 is the mahazer evidencing the said seizure. The seized articles were entrusted to the custody of Shri. S. M. Syed Mohsin, a partner of the said firm, after obtaining an undertaking from him. On the same date the 2nd respondent issued to Shri. Syed Mohsin the order Ext. P3 purporting to be one under S.110 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with S.12 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) prohibiting him (Syed Mohsin) from removing, parting or otherwise dealing with the seized goods deposited with him without the previous permission of the Central Excise Authorities. This writ petition has been brought by the petitioner seeking to quash Exts. P2 and P3.

2. By an amendment introduced in the Act by the Finance Act of 1971 Item 22D was introduced in the First Schedule to the said Act whereby advalorem excise duty at 10% was made leviable in respect of articles of ready to-wear apparel, known commercially as ready-made garments, including undergarments and body supporting garments but excluding articles of hosiery in or in relation to the manufacture of which any process is ordinarily carried on with the aid of power. The ground stated in Exts. P2 and P3 for the seizure and detention of the stock of brassieres kept in the petitioner's business premises is that the manufacture of the brassieres without obtaining a Central Excise licence constituted an offence under the Act and the Rules and hence the 2nd respondent had reason to believe that the goods were liable to confiscation. The petitioner contends that the brassieres manufactured by it will not fall within the ambit of item 22D of the First Schedule to the Act and that hence there was no necessity for the petitioner to obtain a licence for carrying the manufacture of the said article. On this basis it is urged on behalf of the petitioner that the action taken by the respondents in seizing the entire stock of brassieres kept in the petitioner's business premises as per the mahazar Ext. P2 and in issuing the prohibitory order Ext. P3 under S.110 of the Customs Act, 1962 is illegal and without jurisdiction.

3. The brassieres are undoubtedly undergarments falling within the description "articles of ready-to-wear apparel (known commercially as ready made garments) including undergarments" and hence excise duty will be leviable in respect of them, if, in relation to their manufacture, any process is ordinarily carried on with the aid of power.

4. The process employed in the petitioner's factory for the manufacture of brassieres has been explained as follows in Ext. P1:

"We manufacture brassieres. We started manufacturing this ready-to-wear apparel in 1964. We have a factory in Pattikkara Street, Palghat with 9 sewing machines where these brassieres are stitched. Cutting is done in our premises in Market Road, Palghat. After cutting to sizes the cloth, tape, elastics and label are given to the workers in the factory who return the finished brassieres to us. The cloth, tape, elastics and label are also distributed to about 30 outworkers who stitch them in their bouses and return the finished brassieres to our premises in Market Road, Palghat. These finished brassieres are ironed with electric iron in our premises in Market Road and then it is packed in card board boxes." All the work up to the stage of ironing is carried out without the aid of electric power. But, after the process of stitching is over the stitched brassieres are ironed in the petitioner's factory using electric irons before they are packe



Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top