Exemption under textile notification turns on its exact wording, and redundant deletion cannot be assumed when related entries still differ.

Notification No. 4/97-C.E. was construed according to its actual wording: the omission of the words "draw twisted or texturised yarn" from one entry could not be ignored as redundant when those words remained in another entry. The Tribunal also accepted that duty had been paid at each stage and that the departmental characterisation of such payment as a mere deposit did not justify refusal of exemption on the facts. It further rejected the view that the factory had facilities for producing single yarn merely because texturising was carried on in the same premises, and the exemption benefit was ultimately allowed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to exemption under Notification No. 4/97-C.E., as amended, for dyed, printed, bleached or mercerised yarn manufactured in a factory which did not have the facilities for producing single yarn, and whether the deletion of the words relating to draw-twisted or texturised yarn in one entry could be treated as redundant.

Analysis: The Tribunal read the notification as a whole and held that the omission of the words "draw twisted or texturised yarn" from entry 116A could not be ignored or treated as redundant when the same words continued in entry 116B. It found that the assessee paid duty at each stage and that the departmental view that the payment was merely a deposit, rather than duty, did not justify denial of the exemption on the facts. The Tribunal rejected the approach of the lower authorities that the assessee had facilities for producing single yarn merely because texturising was undertaken in the same factory, and held that the notification had to be applied according to its actual wording.

Conclusion: The assessee was held entitled to the exemption and the denial of the notification benefit was set aside.

---