Exemption for cotton fabric processing upheld where records disproved man-made fabric allegations and steam use remained permissible.

Contemporaneous records showing fabric receipt, processing and clearance were treated as the best evidence of the nature of goods processed, and uncorroborated secondary material was found insufficient to prove that the assessee mainly handled man-made fabrics. Minimal electricity use, confined to lighting and fans, did not establish processing with the aid of power, and steam used for ageing printed cotton fabrics was regarded as permissible under the exemption conditions. On that basis, the exemption notifications were held applicable and the demand and penalty were set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, during 1993-1996, the appellant processed cotton fabrics or man-made fabrics; (ii) whether the appellant processed fabrics with the aid of power or steam; (iii) whether the appellant was entitled to exemption under Notification No. 48/90-CE, Notification No. 28/94-CE and Notification No. 41/95-CE.

Issue (i): Whether, during 1993-1996, the appellant processed cotton fabrics or man-made fabrics.

Analysis: The record maintained by the appellant contained detailed particulars of receipt, processing and clearance of fabrics, including composition and nature of the goods. The entries showed that, except for a small number of cases, the processed fabrics were cotton fabrics. The Department relied on limited entries and on secondary material, but did not corroborate the allegation from the supplier or buyer side records. The evidence on record did not support the conclusion that the appellant was mainly engaged in processing man-made fabrics.

Conclusion: The appellant processed predominantly cotton fabrics, not man-made fabrics.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellant processed fabrics with the aid of power or steam.

Analysis: The electricity consumption shown was minimal and was accepted as being used for lighting, fans and exhaust fans. There was no specific evidence that processes such as washing, dyeing, mercerizing or printing were carried out with the aid of power. The steam generated through boilers was used for ageing of printed cotton fabrics, which was permissible under the exemption conditions. The alleged use of power in processing was therefore not established.

Conclusion: The appellant did not process the fabrics with the aid of power in the manner alleged by the Department, and use of steam for ageing of cotton fabrics was permissible.

Issue (iii): Whether the appellant was entitled to exemption under Notification No. 48/90-CE, Notification No. 28/94-CE and Notification No. 41/95-CE.

Analysis: Since the appellant had mainly processed cotton fabrics and the use of steam for ageing was within the permitted conditions, the basic disqualification relied upon by the Department was not made out. The demand and penalty were founded on an incorrect factual premise and on insufficient evidence.

Conclusion: The appellant was entitled to the benefit of the exemption notifications.

Final Conclusion: The demand and penalty were unsustainable, and the impugned order was set aside in full.

Ratio Decidendi: An exemption cannot be denied on the basis of uncorroborated secondary material where the assessee's contemporaneous records establish the nature of the goods processed, and permissible use of steam in processing cotton fabrics does not by itself defeat the exemption.

---