Textile processing and natural justice: repeated hearing opportunities defeat procedural challenge, while classification and exemption were remitted.

Repeated opportunities to inspect relied-upon documents, file replies and attend hearing defeated the plea of denial of natural justice, and the adjudication was treated as valid. The processing of fabrics by pre-shrinking, scouring, heat-setting, drying and stentering was held to fall within dutiable textile processing and therefore amounted to manufacture; the extended period for demand was also held invocable. Classification and exemption under Notification No. 35/84-C.E. were not finally determined on the existing record and were remitted for reconsideration, with consequential redetermination of duty and penalty.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the adjudication suffered from denial of natural justice for want of hearing and supply of documents; (ii) whether the processes of pre-shrinking, scouring, heat-setting, drying and stentering amounted to manufacture and whether the extended period for demand was invocable; (iii) whether the goods were correctly classifiable and whether the benefit of Notification No. 35/84-C.E. was admissible.

Issue (i): whether the adjudication suffered from denial of natural justice for want of hearing and supply of documents

Analysis: The record showed repeated opportunities to take copies of relied-upon documents, filing of replies, repeated adjournments sought by the assessee, and a final hearing fixed after warning which was not attended. The adjudicating authority had also discussed the submissions made in the replies.

Conclusion: The plea of denial of natural justice was rejected and the adjudication was held valid.

Issue (ii): whether the processes of pre-shrinking, scouring, heat-setting, drying and stentering amounted to manufacture and whether the extended period for demand was invocable

Analysis: The admissions of the assessee's own representatives established that the fabrics underwent pre-shrinking, scouring, heat-setting and washing followed by drying on stenters, which fell within the tariff description of dutiable processing. The demand was also supported by the ingredients necessary for invocation of the longer limitation period as reflected in the notice and annexure.

Conclusion: The processing amounted to manufacture and the extended period was held invocable.

Issue (iii): whether the goods were correctly classifiable and whether the benefit of Notification No. 35/84-C.E. was admissible

Analysis: The classification dispute required reconsideration in the light of technical material indicating use as industrial fabrics in textile processing, and the exemption claim also required fresh examination because the material indicated polyester content below the stipulated threshold. These questions were not finally adjudicated on the existing record and were sent back for redetermination.

Conclusion: The classification and exemption issues were remitted for reconsideration, with liberty to redetermine the duty and consequential penalty.

Final Conclusion: The findings on manufacture and confiscation were maintained, but the matter was returned for fresh decision on classification and exemption, with consequential reworking of the duty and penalty liability.

Ratio Decidendi: Repeated opportunity to participate in adjudication defeats a plea of natural justice, and processes specifically covered by the tariff description of taxable textile processing amount to manufacture.

---