Full Judgment
Commissioner by which he confirmed the duty demand raised in three show cause notices as a result of denial of benefit of exemption in terms of Notification No. 9/96, dated 23-7-1996 to decatising process carried out by the appellants herein on man-made fabrics.
2. None appeared for the respondent in spite of notice. Hence we heard ld. SDR and perused the records.
3. We find that the adjudicating authority has relied upon the definition of calendering and decatising in the Fairchilds Dictionary of Textiles to bring out the difference between two processes and to hold that since calendering and not decatising is covered by the exemption under Notification, decatising process which carried out by the appellants is not covered by the benefit of the Notification.
According to the dictionary, calendering is a finishing process producing a flat, glossy, smooth surface by passing the fabrics under pressure between a series of heated cylinders, whereas decatising is defined as a method of sponging wool and worsted fabrics to set the width and length and to improve the lustre, hand and finish and as a finishing process for rayon and other MMF or combination of Fibre-Fabrics, which improves the hand, colour and lustre and may remedy uneven dyeing. It has been held that calendering process is not final process and fabrics can go for further process such as printing after calendering while decatising is a final stage. No satisfactory explanation based on reliable technical material or otherwise has been placed before us in the appeal to persuade us to take a different view.
We, therefore, uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal.