1983 (6) TMI 177

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... pellant and described by him as "unprocessed cotton fabric belting cloth woven as such" in the clarification list is exempt under Notification No. 70/69, dated 1-3-1969 or not. Admittedly, the fabric produced is of width of 91 centimeters and 103 centimeters and is cut to required size to make it suitable for belting of the machinery on which they are used. 3. The Assistant Collector, in his order dated 14-7-1975, observed that the fabric in question has a weave of canvas cloth and has a width of 91 cms and could not be termed as belting "by any stretch of imagination". This view was based on a report of the Chemical Examiner who opined that the sample had weave construction of canvas. The A.C. further stated : "As has been contended .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e made up that are designed for the transmission of power or for the purpose of conveying or elevating". He submitted that canvas and belting have common weave and it, therefore, cannot be held that if the weave is common belting must be regarded as canvas. The notification did not lay down any limitation on the weave or width of the cloth. He further averred that belting cloth was woven as such and was consumed as conveyor belting in the biscuit factory. He also referred to the ISI standards and claimed that these did not distinguish between canvas and belting even on the basis of weaving structure. He further submitted that no separate looms were used for belting and the same looms are used for canvas or belting. 6. The Representat .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... oubt that what comes off the looms is belting and the appellant has also shown that it is used as a belting by the biscuit factory. That the belting has to be cut to size to be fitted in the machine cannot be a circumstance against calling it belting because it is not possible to contemplate a situation in which belting would come off the looms in the exact required shapes and sizes. The notification, therefore, could not have contemplated such a situation. We, therefore, hold that the cutting of the belting cloth for fitment to the machines as conveyor belt should not stand in he way of granting the exemption in terms of the notification. 9. In the circumstances, we hold that the belting cloth manufactured by the appellant and used a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X