COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHANDIGARH versus M/S. SHITAL INTERNATIONAL

Citation: [2010] 12 S.C.R. 824 · Decided: 22-10-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.K. JAIN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2010] 12 S.C.R. 824 
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHANDIGARH 
V. 
M/S. SHITAL INTERNATIONAL 
(Civil Appeal Nos.1689-1690 of 2003) 
OCTOBER 22, 2010 
[D.K. JAIN AND CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, JJ.] 
Central Excise Tariff Act, 1975: Chapter 60, note 4 -
C Knitted pile fabric - Process of carding, knitting and shearing 
undertaken by the assessee in the manufacture of fabric -
Claim for exemption under Notification no. 0612000 as also 
under Notification nos. 5199, 9196 and 18196 - Held: The 
processes undertaken by assessee did not have the effect of 
D changing the "grey fabric" into another commodity or bring 
about a permanent or lasting change in the fabric so as to 
bring out a new product, amounting to manufacture in terms 
of Chapter Note 4 to Chapter 60 - Fabric in question was 
E "unprocessed knitted fabric" falling under Sr. No. 165 of the 
exemption notification No. 0612000 attracting nil rate of duty 
as also under notification Nos. 5199, 9196 and 18196 - In 
construing the words "or any other process" in Chapter Note 
4 of Chapter 60, the import of the specific expressions has to 
F be kept in mind -- Interpretation of statutes - Doctrine of 
ejusdem generis - Notification nos. 0612000-CE, 5199-CE, 91 
96-CE and 18196-CE. 
Doctrines/Principles: Principle of ejusdem generis -
G Applicability of -- General terms following particular 
expressions take their colour and meaning as that of the 
preceding expressions, applying the principle of ejusdem 
generis rule - Central Excise Tariff Act, 1975. 
824 
H 
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, v. SHITAL 825 
INTERNATIONAL 
Plea: Fresh plea - Permissibility to build a new case -
A 
Held: Not permissible - Revenue cannot be allowed to raise 
a plea, which was not raised in the show cause notice nor can 
it be allowed to take contradictory stands in· relation to the 
same assessee - Central Excise Tariff Act, 1975. 
B 
The question which arose for consideration in the 
instant appeals was whether the tribunal was justified in 
holding that Since the processes of carding, knitting and 
shearing of the fabric, undertaken by the assessee-
respondent did not find mention in Chapter Note 4 of C 
Chapter 60 and were also not covered by the expresion 
"any other process" mentioned in the said Chapter Note, 
therefore, the knitted pile fabric manufactured by the 
assessee was unprocessed and was subject to nil rate 
of duty in terms of Notification no.6/ 2000-CE dated 1st 
March 2000 as also under Notification Nos.9/96-CE and 
D 
18/96-CE. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. It is well settled that general terms following 
particular expressions take their colour and meaning as 
that of the preceding expressions, applying the principle 
E 
F 
of ejusdem generis rule. In construing the words "or any 
other process" in chapter Note 4 of Chapter 60, the 
import of the specific expressions has to be kept in mind. 
Therefore, the processes undertaken by the assessee 
must take their colour from the process of bleaching, 
dyeing, printing, shrink-proofing, tentering, heat-setting, 
crease-resistant processing, specifically mentioned in the 
Note. It is evident that when a grey fabric is subjected to 
any of these processes, a permanent or lasting change 
G 
is brought about in the fabric. In the instant case, both 
the appellate authorities Qelow found that shearing or 
back-coating did not brin'g atlout any permanent or 
lasting change in the knitted 'pile fabric manufactured by 
H 
826 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 12 S.C.R. 
A the assessee by carding and knitting. The processes of 
shearing or back-coating are not of the same nature as 
other processes mentioned in the said chapter Note and 
therefore, would not fall within the scope and ambit of 
"any other process." A bare perusal of the nature of the 
B processes, explained in the declaration filed by the 
assessee revealed that the processes mentioned therein 
did not have the effect of changing the "grey fabric" into 
another commodity or bring about a permanent or 
lasting change in the fabric so as to bring out a new 
c product, tantamounting to manufacture in terms of 
Chapter Note 4 to Chapter 60 of the Tariff Act. The 
' 
Tribunal rightly held that the said processes did not 
· amount to "manufacture" in terms of Note 4 of Chapter 
60 of the Tariff Act, and, therefore, the fabric in question 
0 was "unprocessed knitted fabric" falling under Sr. No.165 
of the exemption notification No. 06/2000 dated 1st 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.