TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal rules fabric treatment as padding, not coating, overturning benefit denial.</h1> <h3>AHMEDABAD UNION DYG. MILLS Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., AHMEDABAD</h3> AHMEDABAD UNION DYG. MILLS Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., AHMEDABAD - 2007 (208) E.L.T. 124 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues involved: Denial of benefit under Notification No. 5/98 for Cotton Bleached Fabrics due to the process of padding being considered as coating.Analysis:1. Issue of denial of Notification No. 5/98: The primary issue in this case revolved around the denial of the benefit under Notification No. 5/98 for Cotton Bleached Fabrics due to the process of padding being categorized as coating. The Commissioner's reasoning for denying the benefit was based on the chemical analysis report of the fabric samples, which indicated the presence of various compounds beyond just starch or fatty materials typically used in padding. The definition of 'padding' as per Notification No. 3/2001-CE was also considered, highlighting the specific application of starch or fatty materials. The process undertaken by the appellant involved a complex mixture of inorganic chemical compounds and fillers, indicating a coating process rather than a simple padding process.2. Legal arguments and precedents: The appellant relied on TNo. 130/84 of Pune Collectorate and the decision in the case of CCE v. Sunita Textiles Ltd, which referenced the aforementioned TNotice. The Supreme Court's guidelines in Susma Textiles were also cited, emphasizing the tests for a coating process to be considered valid. The argument was made that since the padding solution and stiffness imparted to the fabrics were not permanent or irreversible, the benefit of the notification should be granted as claimed. Additionally, the allegation of screen printing, not mentioned in the show cause notice, was deemed beyond the scope of consideration.3. Judgment and analysis: After considering the facts and arguments presented, the Tribunal found no justification to classify the process as coating. The test results indicated that the fabric surface was not uniformly and evenly coated, with gaps present that rendered the fabric not impervious, a key characteristic of a coating process. The application of the special mixture was deemed to align more with a padding process, making it eligible for the notification's benefits. Consequently, the order denying the benefit was set aside, and the appeals were allowed, emphasizing the distinction between padding and coating processes based on the specific characteristics observed in the fabric samples.This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, legal arguments, and the Tribunal's reasoning behind overturning the denial of benefits under the notification for Cotton Bleached Fabrics.
TaxTMI 