Ejusdem generis limits exemption where knitted fabrics undergo a stenter-like process and the notification benefit is excluded.

Knitted or crocheted fabrics subjected to a process analogous to stentering/tentering were held outside the exemption under Notification No. 109/1986-C.E., as amended, because the proviso withdrew the benefit for fabrics processed by bleaching, dyeing, printing, shrink-proofing, tentering, heat-setting, crease-resistant processing or any similar process. The expression "any other process" was read by ejusdem generis with the specified processes, so it covered only processes of the same kind. The admitted use of a hot air stenter to dry the fabric made the treatment analogous to stentering/tentering, bringing it within the proviso. The exemption was therefore unavailable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondent was entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 109/1986-C.E., as amended, in respect of knitted or crocheted fabrics subjected to a process analogous to stentering/tentering, having regard to the proviso excluding fabrics processed by bleaching, dyeing, printing, shrink-proofing, tentering, heat-setting, crease-resistant processing or any other similar process.

Analysis: The notification granted exemption to woven pile fabrics and certain knitted or crocheted fabrics, but withdrew that benefit where the fabrics were subjected to specified processing operations or any other process of the same kind. The words "any other process" were read in the light of the specific processes mentioned earlier in the proviso, and therefore took colour from them under the rule of ejusdem generis. Even if the respondent's operation did not strictly amount to stentering, the admitted use of a hot air stenter to dry the fabric made the process analogous to stentering/tentering and therefore within the mischief of the proviso.

Conclusion: The respondent was not entitled to the exemption under the notification, and the benefit stood excluded by the proviso.

---