https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95296 A departmental appeal was treated as procedurally defective because it was filed against only one respondent even though the dispute involved three assessees; merely referring to the others as "others" in the memo did not cure the omission. The appeal was therefore not maintainable against all concerned assessees. On the exemption issue, scouring of cotton fabrics in kiers was held not to be bleaching. The explanation to the notification covered bleaching with machine aid, but scouring remained a distinct cleaning process and did not automatically amount to half-bleaching. The exemption was accordingly retained and the departmental challenge failed. en-us Thu, 16 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 10 Dec 2011 10:37:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95296 A departmental appeal was treated as procedurally defective because it was filed against only one respondent even though the dispute involved three assessees; merely referring to the others as "others" in the memo did not cure the omission. The appeal was therefore not maintainable against all concerned assessees. On the exemption issue, scouring of cotton fabrics in kiers was held not to be bleaching. The explanation to the notification covered bleaching with machine aid, but scouring remained a distinct cleaning process and did not automatically amount to half-bleaching. The exemption was accordingly retained and the departmental challenge failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 16 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95296