Fabric qualifies as "belting woven as such" under Notification No. 70/69. Tribunal rules in favor of appellant.

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, finding that the fabric manufactured and utilized by them qualified as "belting woven as such" under Notification No. 70/69. Despite initial determinations that the fabric resembled canvas cloth, the Tribunal emphasized that the fabric met the criteria of being belting when it left the looms and functioned as belting after cutting to size. Therefore, the appellant was granted the exemption benefit, and the appeal was allowed.

---

---

Issues:
Whether the fabric manufactured by the appellant qualifies as "belting woven as such" for exemption under Notification No. 70/69.

Analysis:
The case involved a dispute regarding the classification of fabric manufactured by the appellant under Notification No. 70/69. The fabric in question was described as "unprocessed cotton fabric belting cloth woven as such" and was subject to scrutiny by the authorities. The Assistant Collector initially opined that the fabric did not qualify as belting cloth due to its weave construction resembling canvas cloth. He determined that the fabric should be assessed as canvas rather than belting.

The Appellate Collector upheld the Assistant Collector's decision, emphasizing that the exemption under the notification pertained to belting woven as such and not belting cloth. He highlighted the distinction between fabric woven on ordinary looms and belting woven on special looms, asserting that the fabric did not meet the criteria for exemption as it required further processing to be used as belting.

During the appeal, the appellant argued that the definition of "belting" encompassed various forms of belts designed for power transmission or conveying purposes, and the weave commonality between canvas and belting did not negate the fabric's classification as belting. The appellant also contended that the fabric was woven as belting and utilized as conveyor belting in a biscuit factory, citing ISI standards that did not differentiate between canvas and belting based on weaving structure.

The Tribunal deliberated on the interpretation of "belting woven as such" under Notification No. 70/69. Despite the vagueness of the term, the Tribunal concluded that the fabric qualified as belting woven as such since it functioned as belting after cutting to size for machine fitting. The Tribunal reasoned that the fabric met the essential criteria of being belting when it left the looms, and the subsequent cutting process should not disqualify it from the exemption provided by the notification.

Ultimately, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, determining that the belting cloth manufactured and utilized by the appellant, even after cutting to size, should be considered as "belting woven as such." Consequently, the appellant was granted the benefit of the exemption under Notification No. 70/69, and the appeal was allowed.

---