9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (11) TMI 220X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e dispute are that Notification No. 253/82 exempted "cotton fabrics, falling under Chapter 52 of the schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986) when subjected to any process or processes specified in the Table hereto annexed, from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon. 3. The table to the Notification listed 12 processes. Sl. Nos. 1 and 10 of the list which are relevant to the present dispute were as under. "1. Calendering (other than calendaring with grooved rollers). 10. Padding, that is to say, applying natural starch on one or both sides of the fabric." The exemption notification had the following proviso. "Provided that no such exemption shall apply. (ii) If cotton fabrics, falling under Chapter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt assessee that the contention raised by the Revenue with regard to shrink proofing is not tenable and this issue remains settled in favour of assessees by the decision of the CEGAT in the case of Omkar Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise - 1993 (63) E.L.T. 580 which decision has been upheld by the Apex Court [1994 (69) E.L.T. A195]. 8. With regard to the objection regarding coating, it has been submitted that the process carried out by the respondent does not impart any lasting characteristic to the fabric and such processes which are temporary in character do not fall in the category of textile processing. The respondents have relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Siddeshwari Cotton Mills (P) Ltd. v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10. With regard to the charge of coating, the learned Counsel for the respondent assessee has pointed out that the respondent only carried out the process of 'Foam Finish' which is similar to "padding" mentioned under Sl. No.10 of the table to the notification. It was also pointed out that according to the test report, the coating material has surface active properties. The finish rendered by such coating is purely temporary and imparts no permanent character to the fabric. The ld. Counsel explained that the words "any other processes" came for consideration before the Apex Court in Siddeshwari Cotton Mills (P) Ltd. and it was held by the Apex Court that the processes covered by the phrase are processes which impart a change of a lasting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e question whether zero-zero machine was used is also immaterial, once it is found that the process undertaken was the process of calendaring and, shrink proofing process was not carried out additionally. 12. There is also no merit in the second contention that the respondents carries out the process of coating which goes beyond the scope of padding mentioned under Sl. No. 10 of the Notification. The process carried out by the respondents was foam coating. That process did not impart change of a lasting character to the fabric. Therefore, that process also cannot be called any other processes carried out on the fabric. This issue remains covered in favour of the respondent assessee under the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sidde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
