Judgement

VENKATACHALIAH, J. : - This appeal under Section 35-L of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (Act) by Messrs Siddeshwari Cotton Mills (P) Ltd., preferred against the appellate order dated 16-3-1984, of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, raises a short question whether the appellant, which manufactures cotton fabric on power looms which is otherwise exempt from duties of excise and the additional duties of excise respectively under Notification No. 230/77 and 231/77 dated 15-7-1977, loses the benefit of exemption by process of calendering on a calendering plant situated in the appellants premises.

The Notification 230/77Ce dated 15-7-1977 issued by Central Government under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, exempts from the whole of the duty of Excise, unprocessed cotton fabric, falling under sub item (1) of item No. 19 of the First Schedule to the Act, which is manufactured on power looms (without spinning or processing plants) installed and worked with the permission of the Textile Commissioner. Likewise, Notification No. 231/77.CE dated 15-7-1977 exempts such cotton fabric from payment of the additional duties of excise.

2. The question in the appeal is whether such cotton fabric ceases to be "unprocessed" cotton fabric if it is subjected to calendring. The Tribunal has held in the affirmative and has upheld the levy of duty imposed on the appellant.

We have heard Sri Soli J. Sorabjee, learned Senior cousnel for the appellant and Sri A. K. Ganguly, learned Senior Counsel for the Revenue.

3. The facts which are not in dispute may briefly be stated. The Central Excise authorities held appellant to have contravened the provisions of the relevant rules by manufacturing and removing, between 14-5-1981 and 19-9-1981, 6,09,848.47 Sq .Metres of calendered cotton fabric falling under item 19-1 (b) of the First Schedule to the Act without payment of Rs. 2,62,767.04 leviable thereon as excise duty. The Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta, directed the appellant to pay the said duty and also imposed on the appellant a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- under Rule 173-Q. The Central Board of Excise and Customs, by its order dated 24-8-1982, partly allowed the appellants appeal and while affirming the levy of the duty, however, set aside the imposition of the penalty. The further appeal before the Appellate-Tribunal preferred by the appellant against the confirmation of the levy and the duty came to be dismissed by the Tribunals order dated 16-3-1984 now under appeal.

4. Before the Appellate Tribunal it was contended for the appellant that the process of plain-calendering to which the cotton fabric was subjected, though might, in itself, be a process in the larger and general sense of that term, would not, however, fall under "any other process" within the meaning of S. 2(f)(v) of Act. It was contended that even after the calendering, the cotton fabric remained an "unprocessed" cotton fabric and the expression "any other process" in S. 2(f)(v) must be considered ejusdem generis, so as to partake of the nature and character of the processes and belong to the same genus as those envisaged in the preceding expressions in that clause. S. 2(f)(v) reads :

"In relation to goods comprised in Item No. 19-1 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, includes bleaching, mercerising, dyeing, printing, water-proofing, rubberising, shrink-proofing, organdie processing or any other process or any one or more of these processes;"

The Appellate Tribunal did not accept this contention. It held :

"……There is prima facie nothing in the language employed in Section 2(f) and item 19-I of the CET to suggest that the words "any other process" will take within sweep only such processes as are of the same class or genus as the specifically enumerated processes. It may be that for the enumerated processes some extraneous substance may be required. That, however, would not make the processes a class. The enumera