https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82098 Processing cotton fabrics on a zero zero machine without a baby stenter was treated as calendering, not shrink-proofing, because mere shrinkage incidental to calendering does not establish the residual shrinkage or dimensional stability associated with shrink-proofed fabrics. The technical record did not show that the fabrics acquired shrink-proof characteristics, and the later explanatory notification confirmed that such processing remained within the scope of exempted calendering. On that basis, the exemption was available and central excise duty was not attracted. The concurring view stated that the later explanation was clarificatory and made explicit what had already been implicit in the earlier notification. en-us Thu, 29 Oct 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 01 Jul 2011 18:36:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82098 Processing cotton fabrics on a zero zero machine without a baby stenter was treated as calendering, not shrink-proofing, because mere shrinkage incidental to calendering does not establish the residual shrinkage or dimensional stability associated with shrink-proofed fabrics. The technical record did not show that the fabrics acquired shrink-proof characteristics, and the later explanatory notification confirmed that such processing remained within the scope of exempted calendering. On that basis, the exemption was available and central excise duty was not attracted. The concurring view stated that the later explanation was clarificatory and made explicit what had already been implicit in the earlier notification. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 29 Oct 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82098