COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Vs. ALPS INDUSTRIES LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal filed by Revenue the issue involved is whether the benefit of Notification No. 6/2000 -C.E., dated 1 -3 -2000 (Sri. No. 166), and benefit of Notification No. 3/2001 -C.E., dated 1 -3 -2001 (Sri. No. 171) is available to the vertical blinds manufactured by M/s. Alps Industries Ltd. We hared Shri H.C. Verma, learned D.R. for the Revenue and Shri Lajja Ram, learned Advocate for the Respondents.

(2.) Both the Notification Nos. 6/2000 and 3/2001 provides nil rate of duty in respect of made -up textile articles made out of handloom fabrics falling under Chapter 63 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act. It is not disputed by the Revenue that the vertical blinds manufactured by the Respondents fall under Heading No. 63.03 of the Central Excise Tariff. The contention of the Revenue is that the vertical blinds are not made out of handloom fabrics and these are made out of the processed fabrics; that the handloom fabrics before being used to manufacture vertical blinds is passed through vinyl acetate solution and thereafter is passed through 40 feet long drying chamber to cure the coated/impregnated fabric followed by slitting thereof in strips and this fact has been confirmed by the Chemical Examiner of C.R.C.L., I.I.T., Delhi, and N.I.T.R.A. The Revenue has thus contended that the benefit of the Notification is available only if the made -up articles are made -up of unprocessed handloom.

(3.) We do not find any substance in the submissions of the learned D.R. The Notification, in clear terms, provides nil rate of duty in respect of made -up textile articles made out of handloom fabrics falling under Chapter 63. The words 'handloom fabrics' are not qualified with the word processed or unprocessed. Thus even if the made -up article is made out of the processed handloom fabrics the benefit of Notification cannot be denied. It is also not the case of the Revenue that after processing the handloom fabrics loses its characteristic of being handloom fabrics. Accordingly, we find no merit in the appeal filed by the Revenue and therefore, we reject the same. Accordingly cross -objection filed by the Respondent also stands disposed of.