9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of Notification No. 9/96 for exemption on decatising process on man-made fabrics. Analysis: The appeal in question stemmed from the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai's decision, which upheld the duty demand confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner. This demand arose from the denial of exemption benefits under Notification No. 9/96 dated 23-7-1996 for the decatising process conducted on man-made fabrics by the appellants. Despite notice, no representative appeared for the respondent, leading the Tribunal to hear the learned SDR and examine the records. The Tribunal observed that the adjudicating authority had referenced the Fairchilds Dictionary of Textiles to distinguish between calendering and decatising processes. It was noted that calendering involves passing fabrics under pressure between heated cylinders to produce a flat, glossy, smooth surface, while decatising is a method used for setting the width and length of wool and worsted fabrics, improving lustre, hand, and finish, especially for rayon and other man-made fiber fabrics. The Tribunal highlighted that calendering is not a final process, allowing fabrics to undergo further processes like printing, whereas decatising represents a final stage. Despite the lack of a convincing explanation or technical evidence in the appeal to support a different interpretation, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order and dismissed the appeal. This judgment provides a detailed analysis of the definitions and distinctions between calendering and decatising processes as per the Fairchilds Dictionary of Textiles. It emphasizes the importance of technical accuracy and reliable evidence in legal interpretations, ultimately leading to the rejection of the appeal due to the lack of substantial evidence supporting a different view on the applicability of the exemption under Notification No. 9/96.
|
