By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, SEPT 16, 2016: THESE appeals were filed in the year 2005 and concern exemption notification of the year 1982.

The issue is whether exemption under Notification No. 253/82-CE dated 8.11.1982 is deniable to cotton grey fabrics subjected to process of scouring or otherwise.

Revenue alleges that the appellant is not entitled to claim the exemption as the fabrics did not undergo the process of scouring but were subjected to bleaching, while the appellant claims that the reality is otherwise i.e. the fabrics were scoured and not bleached.

The Bench observed -

"6. We find that the appellant has been explaining the process used only for scouring which, according to them, is soaking the fabrics in alkaline medium like sodium hydroxide, soda ash, sodium silicate and caustic soda. By this process, the natural oil in the cotton and oil stains spitted during the process of weaving of the fabrics is removed. This, according to the appellant, is not a bleaching process, as for bleaching purpose, chemicals like chlorine and hydrogen peroxide are widely used. 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 data 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 undertaken. 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 not undertaken the process of scouring, we have to hold that the impugned order is unsustainable, liable to be set aside and we do so."

The impugned order was set aside and the appeals were allowed with consequential relief.

(See 2016-TIOL-2426-CESTAT-MUM)