Exemption for textile processing denied where foam-spray treatment went beyond the notified processes and added softness and lustre.

Exemption under Notification No. 253/82 depended on whether the processing activity was confined to the processes specifically listed in the notification. Where fabric underwent zero-zero processing but was also treated with a foam-spraying device using chemical solution to obtain additional shrinkage, softness and lustre, the activity was treated as exceeding calendering or damping and not as a mere incidental variation of the notified process. Because the process included an operation outside the specified table, the exemption was unavailable and the demand and penalty were sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to exemption under Notification No. 253/82 dated 08.11.1982 when, in addition to zero-zero processing, a foam spraying device using chemical solution was attached and the fabrics were subjected to softening and lustering not covered by the specified processes.

Analysis: The exemption under the notification depended on whether the activity fell within the processes enumerated therein. The factual finding was that the assessee used a special foam spray attachment with Alkosin-SR solution to obtain additional shrinkage, softness and lustre. This was held to be more than calendering or damping and not merely an incidental variation of the notified process. Since the activity involved a process other than those specified in the table to the notification, the benefit of exemption was unavailable.

Conclusion: The assessee was not entitled to the exemption, and the demand and penalty were sustained.

---