- (1.) The contention raised by the Appellant in the present appeal is that the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal [for short 'the Tribunal"] was not justified in holding that the processing work done by the Respondent on embroidery would or could be classified under sub-heading 5805.90, as such work carried out by the Respondent, should instead be classified under sub-heading 5805.19. In support of the said contention, reliance was placed on Note Nos. 5 and 8 of Chapter 58 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 [for short "the Act"].
(2.) In Note No. 5 it is indicated that in Heading No. 5805, the expression "embroidery" means, inter alia, as embroidery with metal or glass thread on a visible ground of textile fabric whereas in Note No. 8, it was stated that in relation to fabrics of the chapter bleaching, mercerising, dyeing, printing, water proofing, shrink proofing, tentering, heat-setting, crease resistance, organdie processing or any other process or any one or more of these processes shall amount to 'manufacturing'. Relying on the aforesaid notes, it was contended by the Appellant that even the process of dyeing and bleaching of embroidery would amount to manufacture and, therefore, excisable under sub-heading 5805.19.
(3.) The specific case of the Respondent on the other hand is that the Respondent is not carrying out any embroidery work as it receives the embroidery work on which it carries out processing through bleaching, mercerising and dyeing. It was also contended that the aforesaid work of bleaching, mercerising and dyeing is not carried out by the Respondent by machinery and, therefore, under any circumstances, it cannot be said that the goods would be classifiable under Central Excise Tariff Heading No. 5805.;