CTO Vs. BHANWAR LAL MUTHA AND SONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision against the order dated February 21, 1979 passed by the Board of Revenue in a revision. The relevant assessment years were 1966 -67 and 1973 -74. The question involved for decision is whether embroidered cotton sarees fall within the definition of 'cotton fabrics' as denied in item 19 of the first schedule to the Central Excise and Salts Act, 1944. That definition is material, since item 18 of the schedule to the Rajasthan Act which is the material entry of taxation refers to all cotton fabrics' as defined in the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 and Section 2(c) of the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 provides that the expression 'cotton fabrics' shall have the meaning assigned to it in item 19 of the first schedule to the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944.

(2.) THE aforesaid item 19 of the first schedule to the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944, which is material stood at the relevant date as under:

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the Department based his argument on Pravin Bros. v. The State of Gujarat to support the Department's contention that the expression 'cotton fabrics' as defined above does not include embroidered cotton serees. He argued that the value of the sarees increase considerably after its embroidery which is a process subsequent to the manufacture of the saree as a cotton fabric. In my opinion, this decision instead of supporting the contention negatives it in the present case. In that decision in addition to the taxing entry for 'cotton fabrics' as defined in item 19 in the first schedule to the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944, there was a specific entry for taxing 'embroidered sarees'. The question really was as to whether embroidered cotton sarees in situation would fall within the specific entry meant for sarees embroidered or otherwise decorated or within the entry relating to 'cotton fabrics'. In this situation it was held that the specific taxing entry meant for sarees embroidered or otherwise decorated would be attracted and would exclude the general entry pertaining to 'cotton fabrics'. It was clearly indicated that the legislative intent was clear to treat the two kinds of sarees differently, because a specific entry was made for embroidered or otherwise decorated sarees. It is obvious from the ratio of that decision that but for the specific entry therein relating to embroidered or otherwise decorated sarees, the general entry of 'cotton fabrics' as defined in the above item 19 would be attracted to embroidered cotton sarees. Learned Counsel for the Department also argued that in the same decision embroidered pieces of cotton fabrics of shorter length were also not treated as cotton fabrics and the residuary entry was applied to them. The reason for that is also obvious from the decision. It was indicated that a specified entry being made for embroidered or otherwise decorated cotton fabrics any piece of material which was embroidered or otherwise decorated did not fall within the ambit of the General entry of 'cotton fabrics' and, therefore, no other specific entry being applicable to these embroidered pieces, the residuary entry had to apply. The absence of any specific entry for embroidered sarees or material in the present case under the Rajasthan Act distinguishes the said Gujarat decision (supra) and the ratio of that decision supports the conclusion that the definition of 'cotton fabrics' as above in item 19 is wide enough to include embroidered cotton sarees and for this purpose it has to be treated as the specified entry for embroidered cotton sarees.