ORDER 1. The Respondent herein is undertaking the work of processors of various textile fabrics and also undertakes the job work pertaining to the processing of knitted pile fabrics. For this purpose they have been receiving knitted pile fabrics in grey form from M/s. Dhvani Terefab Exports Pvt. Ltd. in running length of 300 metres. The job undertaken by the Assessee on the said fabric is that of washing, dyeing and bleaching, hydro-extraction, tumble dyeing and drying. After doing the aforesaid job work, the fabric is handed over back to M/s. Dhvani Terefab Exports Pvt. Ltd. on whose behalf the aforesaid job is undertaken. It appears that thereafter M/s. Dhvani Terefab Exports Pvt. Ltd. sends that fabric to some other processor who cuts the same into various lengths and also does sewing and hamming. Then it emerges in the form of towels. Question is as to under which clause the aforesaid process undertaken by the Respondent Assessee would fall. The Appellant treated the same as manufacture of goods in the nature of towels and issued show cause notice on the basis that the said goods to be "made-up articles" under Heading 63 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and imposed the duty accordingly. As per the Assessee the goods fall under Heading 60 of the said tariff which are granted exemption as no final product came into existence at the relevant time. 2. A perusal of the show cause notice would indicate that the Assistant Commissioner had referred to Section Note 5(f) of Section XI of the Central Excise Tariff Act which reads as under "Knitted or crouched to shape, whether presented as separate items or in the form of a number of items in the length". 3. The defence set up by the Assessee was that it would not fall under the aforesaid Section Note inasmuch as the process undertaken did not amount to any knitting or crouching to shape and no separate items had come into existence. However, reference was also made to Section Note 5(b) of Section XI and therefore discussion was carried out on the aforesaid Note as well by the Assistant Commissioner in his order. Section Note 5(b) read with as under: "Produced in the finished state, ready for use (or merely needing separation by cutting dividing threads) without sewing or other working (for example, certain dusters, towels, tale clothes, scarf squares, blankets)". 4. Section Note 5(b) read with as under: "Produced in the finished state, ready for use (or merely needing separation by cutting dividing threads) without sewing or other working (for example, certain dusters, towels, tale clothes, scarf squares, blankets)". 4. The Assistant Commissioner ultimately came to the conclusion that Section Note 5(b) will not apply and it is Section (f) which would apply and confirmed the demand raised in the show cause notice. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this order of the Assistant Commissioner. 5. The Tribunal has, by the impugned order, set aside the demand on the ground that though the show cause notice invoked the provision of Section Note 5(f) of Section XI of the Act but ultimately Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order by invoking the provision of Chapter Note 5(b) of Section XI of the said Act. In this manner, concluded the Tribunal, a new case was made out by the Commissioner which was beyond allegation contained in the show cause notice and that was not permissible. That is precisely the reason for setting aside the order of the Commissioner. 6. We have already explained the process which is undertaken by the Respondent Assessee. It become manifest from the reading thereof that neither the provision of Section Note 5(f) nor that of Section Note 5(b) would be applicable in the instant case inasmuch as no new item came into existence. As pointed out above, it is only when after taking the delivery of these aforesaid job work done by the Respondent that M/s. Dhvani Terefab Export Pvt. Ltd. sent the goods to another processor who undertook the remaining process of knitted pile fabric at his end by cutting, sewing and hamming, that the product of towel came into existence. 7. Therefore, though the reasoning given by the Tribunal appears to be faulty, for the aforesaid reason we are of the view that in any case demand by the Assistant Commissioner was also erroneous and the only conclusion would be to set aside the same. We, thus, uphold the order of the Tribunal though on different terms and dismiss these appeals.