2005 (7) TMI 588

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ent. [Order per : S.S. Sekhon, Member (T)]. Heard both sides. 2. (a)Issue involved in these appeals is denial of Notification No. 5/98 as amended to Cotton Bleached Fabrics cleared during the year 1998-99 to 16-1-2002 on the grounds that the process of padding carried out by the appellants was a process of coating, which was therefore not covered by the said notification as an exempted .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... erials on one or both sides of the fabrics It is clear from the aforesaid definition that padding covers only applying starch or fatty materials on the fabrics. However, in the instant case, as established from the statements of the aforesaid persons, the process undertaken by noticee 1 was not merely applying starch or fatty materials on the fabrics. A separate and distinct chemic .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... id TNotice. The tests for coating process to be employed resulting have been laid by the SC in Susma Textiles [2004 (167) E.L.T. 487 (S.C.)] these tests are not complied to call for coating test to pass; Since the padding solution stiffness imported to the fabrics, in this case, is not even seem to be permanent much less irreversible, therefore, the benefit of notification should be granted .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X