Incidental power use in dyeing-related steps did not defeat exemption where the core dyeing process remained power-free.

Use of power in steps merely incidental or ancillary to dyeing, such as mixing dyes and packing dyed fabrics, did not by itself defeat exemption under the relevant notifications. The exemption applied to fabrics subjected to the specified dyeing process, and it was not excluded simply because power was used in connected preparatory or post-processing activities. As the core dyeing operation was carried out without power, the incidental power use in mixing and packing did not amount to use of power in the specified process. The exemption was therefore available and the demand was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the use of power in mixing dyes and packing dyed fabrics, being incidental or ancillary to dyeing, disentitled the assessee from exemption under the relevant notifications.

Analysis: The exemption covered fabrics subjected to specified processes and did not exclude every use of power connected with the activity. Use of power in steps that were only incidental or ancillary to dyeing, such as mixing dyes or packing the processed fabric, was not the same as use of power in the specified process of dyeing itself. Since the core dyeing process was carried out without power, the incidental use of power did not defeat the exemption.

Conclusion: The use of power in mixing and packing did not disqualify the assessee from the exemption, and the demand was unsustainable.

---