1999 (2) TMI 166

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rder per : Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J)]. The appellants are aggrieved by the order of the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad confirming a duty demand of Rs. 36,834/- by applying the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - duty confirmation is as a result of denial of benefit of Notification 48/90 to processed cotton f .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e records. 3. There is no dispute that the appellants carried out the process of colour fixation with the aid of power. The benefit in terms of Sl. No. 3 of the Table to Notification 48/90 is available only if cotton fabrics are processed without the aid of power or steam and the explanation to the Notification clarifies that the use of steam for colour fixation is permissible. However, use of p .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t they were under an impression that application of sodium silicate on cotton fabrics is equal to the process of padding covered by Notification 253/82 is not borne out by any bona fide belief. The contention of the learned Counsel that the order has been passed on a different footing from the ground raised in the show cause notice viz. that while the order proceeds to confirm duty on the ground o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X