TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether cotton fabrics processed in a Kier machine with bleaching agents were eligible for exemption under Notification No. 253/82-C.E. as a process of scouring.
Analysis: The exemption was confined to the minor processes specified in the notification and did not extend to processes involving bleaching agents. Scouring, being only a washing process with hot water, soap, detergents or alkali solutions, is distinct from bleaching. The record showed that the Kier machine was used with bleaching powder, peroxides and other chemicals, resulting in partial bleaching, and bleaching was treated as a dutiable process without any distinction between partial and full bleaching. The earlier appellate view had not addressed the effect of using bleaching agents.
Conclusion: The process undertaken was bleaching and not exempt scouring; the assessee was not entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 253/82-C.E.
Final Conclusion: The appellate relief granted to the assessee was reversed and the original demand position was restored in favour of the Revenue.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a notification grants exemption only to specified minor processes, a process carried out with bleaching agents in a Kier machine amounts to bleaching rather than scouring and falls outside the exemption.
TaxTMI 
