ORDER
G.A. Brahma Deva, Member (J)
1. These are three appeals filed by the department against the respective respondents involving common issue and, therefore, they are clubhed together and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. Heard Shri D.S. Negi, learned SDR for the Revenue. The respondents remained absent. However, they have requested to decide the case on merits based upon the written submissions filed by them.
3. The respondents were carrying on the business of processing man-made fabrics falling under Tariff Item 22 of the Central Excise Tariff which were chargeable to Handloom Cess and the additional duty under the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957.
4. The respondents also carried out calendering on the man-made fabrics which were brought from outside and clearing the same under exemption in terms of Notification No. 297/79, dated 24-11-1979. This exemption has been denied by the Assistant Collector on the ground that the respondents are not entitled because; they have not only carried out calendering process but also carried out other processes other than calendering which disentitled them the benefit in terms of Notification No. 297/79.
5. It was the contention of the respondents before the lower authorities that Notification No. 297/79, dated 24-11-1979 clearly provides that man-made fabrics subject to any process specified in the Table appended to the Notification shall be entitled to exemption provided no other process in the factory is conducted on such man-made fabrics other than the processes specified in the table of the Notification. It was submitted by them that no other process was carried on by them with reference to such fabrics and, accordingly, they are entitled to claim benefit of exemption relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sidhcslmwi Cotton Mills 1989 (39) E.L.T. 498 (S.C.).
6. Proviso to Notification No. 297/79, dated 24-11-1979 as amended by Notification No. 79/86, dated 10-2-1986 reads as under :-
“Provided that no such exemption shall apply if man-made fabrics falling under the said Chapter are subjected to any process or processes specified in the said table within the same factory in which they have been subject to any process other than processes specified in the table.”
7. It is clear from reading of proviso to the said notification that exemption under the said Notification No. 297/79 will not be applicable if the man-made fabrics falling under Tariff Item 22(1) of the Central Excise Tariff are subject to any process or processes specified in the Table below the notification within the same factory in which they have been subjected to any process, other than the processes specified in the Table. The Collector (Appeals) has observed that it was argued on behalf of the parties that no other process was done in their factories other than calendering process. Further, he observed that if so, they are entitled to avail of the facility subject to verification. Since he has laid down the principles and observed that facility can be extended to verification and in the absence of any evidence brought on record to show that other processes were also carried out with reference to the man-made fabrics by the respondents, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned orders. Accordingly, all these three appeals filed by the department are hereby dismissed.