https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51761 Incidental shrinkage during calendaring with a zero-zero machine was treated as not amounting to separate shrink proofing, because the record did not show use of a stenter and the shrinkage was only incidental to the process. The foam finish/coating was also held to be temporary and not a lasting fabric change, so it did not amount to an additional disqualifying process beyond padding. On that basis, the exemption under Notification No. 253/82-C.E., as amended, was not denied and entitlement to exemption was sustained. en-us Wed, 27 Nov 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 28 Sep 2010 10:47:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51761 Incidental shrinkage during calendaring with a zero-zero machine was treated as not amounting to separate shrink proofing, because the record did not show use of a stenter and the shrinkage was only incidental to the process. The foam finish/coating was also held to be temporary and not a lasting fabric change, so it did not amount to an additional disqualifying process beyond padding. On that basis, the exemption under Notification No. 253/82-C.E., as amended, was not denied and entitlement to exemption was sustained. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 27 Nov 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51761