2006 (2) TMI 474 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal rules can-drying not hydro-extraction under Notification No. 297/79-C.E.

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the Revenue, finding that the process of 'can-drying' undertaken by the respondents did not qualify as 'Hydro-extraction' ... Fabrics - Can-drying - Exemption Issues:Interpretation of 'Hydro-extraction' process under Notification No. 297/79-C.E. for exemption eligibility.Analysis:The case involved three appeals arising from a remand ordered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 2108-2110/1998. The issue revolved around the eligibility of the respondents for exemption under Notification No. 297/79-C.E. concerning man-made fabrics subjected to specific finishing processes. The key contention was whether the process of 'can-drying' undertaken by the respondents could be considered as falling within the definition of 'Hydro-extraction' as per the Notification. The Notification specified that no exemption would apply if fabrics were subjected to any process other than those listed in the table. The crucial aspect was to determine if 'can-drying' qualified as a process mentioned in the Notification.The respondents argued that 'can-drying' involved mechanical processes, including the use of squeeze mangles and rollers for fabric drying, fitting within the definition of 'Hydro-extraction.' They contended that 'can-drying' did not amount to 'manufacture' under the Central Excise Act or any other process mentioned. The Revenue, however, emphasized strict construction of exemption notifications, asserting that 'Hydro-extraction' was purely mechanical and should not encompass thermal processes. The literature provided by both parties highlighted the mechanical aspects of water removal from fabrics through machines like water mangles.The Tribunal analyzed the process of 'can-drying' in detail, considering the mechanical and thermal components involved. It noted that while 'Hydro-extraction' was purely mechanical, 'can-drying' comprised both mechanical squeezing and thermal drying, making it a composite process. The Tribunal concluded that 'can-drying' could not be equated with 'Hydro-extraction' as defined in the Notification. Therefore, the respondents were deemed ineligible for exemption under Notification No. 297/79-C.E. for their 'can-dried' fabrics during the disputed period. The decision emphasized the importance of strict interpretation of exemption notifications and clarified that if a finishing process was not listed in the Notification, it could not be considered under the proviso.Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appeals of the Revenue, setting aside the impugned orders and ruling in favor of the Revenue based on the interpretation of the finishing process in question. The judgment highlighted the significance of adherence to the specific language and requirements outlined in exemption notifications to determine eligibility for exemptions under the law.