Incidental shrinkage in calendaring does not amount to shrink proofing, and temporary foam finish is not a disqualifying process.

Incidental shrinkage during calendaring with a zero-zero machine was treated as not amounting to separate shrink proofing, because the record did not show use of a stenter and the shrinkage was only incidental to the process. The foam finish/coating was also held to be temporary and not a lasting fabric change, so it did not amount to an additional disqualifying process beyond padding. On that basis, the exemption under Notification No. 253/82-C.E., as amended, was not denied and entitlement to exemption was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the processing done by the respondent amounted to shrink proofing, disentitling it to exemption under Notification No. 253/82-C.E. as amended by Notification No. 213/88-C.E.; (ii) Whether the foam finish/coating carried out by the respondent was a process beyond padding so as to take the case outside the notification.

Issue (i): Whether the processing done by the respondent amounted to shrink proofing, disentitling it to exemption under Notification No. 253/82-C.E. as amended by Notification No. 213/88-C.E.

Analysis: The processing was found to be calendaring with the aid of a zero-zero machine, and the shrinkage occurring in the fabric was only incidental to that process. The record did not establish the use of a stenter, and the shrinkage results were not consistent with shrink proofed fabric as understood in the departmental clarification. The question was covered by the earlier decision treating incidental shrinkage during calendaring as not amounting to shrink proofing.

Conclusion: The respondent did not carry out a separate shrink proofing process, and the exemption was not defeated on that ground.

Issue (ii): Whether the foam finish/coating carried out by the respondent was a process beyond padding so as to take the case outside the notification.

Analysis: The finish applied was temporary in character and did not impart a lasting change to the fabric. A process of this kind could not be treated as an additional process outside the scope of padding for the purpose of the notification.

Conclusion: The foam finish/coating did not amount to a disqualifying additional process.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue failed to establish any ineligibility under the exemption notification, and the assessee's entitlement to exemption was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Incidental shrinkage occurring during calendaring does not amount to shrink proofing, and a temporary finishing process that does not impart a lasting character to the fabric does not constitute an additional disqualifying textile process under the exemption notification.

---