Strict construction of exemption notification: indirect steam heating of tables did not satisfy the prescribed condition for fabric processing benefit.

Exemption under Notification No. 130/82-C.E. was confined to fabrics processed without the aid of power or steam, and Explanation I(c) treated cotton fabrics as processed without steam only where steam was passed over the fabrics for colour fixation. Steam used merely to heat tables, with the fabric cured indirectly, did not satisfy that prescribed mode of use. The broader construction sought by the assessee was rejected because an exemption must be applied strictly within its express terms. The notification benefit was therefore unavailable on the facts stated.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellants were entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 130/82-C.E. for fabrics processed with steam used for heating tables, and not by passing steam over the fabrics for colour fixation.

Analysis: The notification granted exemption only where fabrics were processed without the aid of power or steam, and Explanation I(c) deemed cotton fabrics processed without the aid of steam only when steam was passed over the fabrics for colour fixation. On the facts found, steam was circulated below the tables to heat them, and the fabric was cured indirectly. That mode of use did not satisfy the prescribed condition. The broader interpretation sought was rejected because the exemption had to operate within the terms actually provided in the notification.

Conclusion: The appellants were not entitled to the exemption, and the denial of the notification benefit was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: An exemption notification must be applied according to its express conditions, and benefit cannot be extended where the prescribed manner of use of steam is not satisfied.

---