Exemption for processed cotton fabrics fails where power is used for colour fixation and the claimed padding process is unmet.

Processed cotton fabrics were found outside Notification No. 48/90 because the exemption applied only to fabrics processed without the aid of power or steam, subject only to limited steam use for colour fixation, and admitted use of power for colour fixation disqualified the claim. The alternative claim under Notification No. 253/82 also failed because that exemption covered padding by application of natural starch with power, whereas the process used sodium silicate and did not meet the stated condition. Non-obtaining of a Central Excise licence and non-compliance with formalities supported suppression, so the extended limitation period and penalty were upheld and the duty demand sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether processed cotton fabrics subjected to colour fixation with the aid of power were entitled to exemption under Notification No. 48/90; (ii) Whether the alternative claim to exemption under Notification No. 253/82 was sustainable; (iii) Whether the extended period of limitation and penalty were justified.

Issue (i): Whether processed cotton fabrics subjected to colour fixation with the aid of power were entitled to exemption under Notification No. 48/90.

Analysis: The exemption under Sl. No. 3 of the table to Notification No. 48/90 applied only where cotton fabrics were processed without the aid of power or steam, subject to the specific clarification permitting steam for colour fixation. The admitted use of power for colour fixation took the case outside the scope of the notification.

Conclusion: The claim under Notification No. 48/90 was not available and its denial was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether the alternative claim to exemption under Notification No. 253/82 was sustainable.

Analysis: Sl. No. 10 of the table to Notification No. 253/82 permitted only padding, namely application of natural starch with the aid of power. The process undertaken involved sodium silicate and not starch or fatty material, and therefore did not satisfy the notification conditions.

Conclusion: The claim under Notification No. 253/82 was not available and its denial was upheld.

Issue (iii): Whether the extended period of limitation and penalty were justified.

Analysis: The appellants had not obtained a Central Excise licence or complied with Central Excise formalities, and the asserted bona fide belief was not accepted. In these circumstances, suppression and non-compliance justified invocation of the extended period, and the penalty followed.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation and the penalty were upheld.

Final Conclusion: The demand of duty and the penalty were sustained, and the appeal failed in its entirety.

Ratio Decidendi: An exemption confined to processing without power cannot be claimed where power is admittedly used for colour fixation, and a distinct exemption for padding cannot be extended to a different chemical process merely because it is applied to fabrics.

---