2016 (9) TMI 837 - AT - Central Excise

Whether exemption under Notification No. 253/82-CE dated 8.11.2002 is deniable to cotton grey fabrics subjected to process of scouring or otherwise - fabrics whether scoured or bleached - Held that - on perusal of the orders of both the lower authorities, the findings of the Assistant Commissioner indicate that he has considered treatment of fabrics with soda bleach at room temperature amounting to bleaching which is not supported by any technical or authoritative books. We also find from the records that the sample of the fabrics was sent for analysis and Deputy Chief Chemist informed the results to the Superintendent, which indicated that the sample is in the form of cut piece of off white woven fabrics, which would mean that there was possibly no bleaching process. It is to be noted that the scouring process has been clearly exempted by Notification No.253/82-CE without any conditions. In the absence of any other evidence to show that the appellant had undertaken the process of scouring, we have to hold that the impugned order is unsustainable, liable to be set aside. - Decided in favour of appellant with consequential relief

Summary

Issues Involved:
Whether exemption under Notification No. 253/82-CE dated 8.11.2002 is deniable to cotton grey fabrics subjected to the process of scouring or otherwise.

Analysis:

The judgment pertains to two appeals challenging an order-in-appeal dated 28.2.2005. The main issue revolves around the denial of exemption claimed by the appellant under Notification No. 253/82-CE dated 8.11.2002 concerning cotton grey fabrics and the process they underwent. The Revenue contended that the exemption was not applicable as the fabrics were bleached and not scoured, while the appellant argued that the fabrics indeed underwent scouring and not bleaching.

Upon review, it was observed that the lower authorities concluded that the fabrics were scoured but bleached based on the shared use of equipment for both processes. The appellant consistently explained their scouring process involving alkaline mediums to remove natural oils and stains, distinguishing it from bleaching involving chemicals like chlorine and hydrogen peroxide. The Assistant Commissioner's findings on treatment with soda bleach at room temperature as bleaching lacked technical support or authoritative backing.

Further examination revealed that the fabric sample analysis did not indicate bleaching, supporting the appellant's claim of only scouring being performed. The exemption under Notification No. 253/82-CE for scouring without conditions was highlighted, and in the absence of evidence contradicting the appellant's process, the impugned order was deemed unsustainable and set aside.

Consequently, the judgment set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeals with any consequential relief. The decision emphasized the distinction between scouring and bleaching processes in determining the applicability of the exemption, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellant based on the evidence presented.