Textile classification depends on proof of heat setting, and denial of expert cross-examination can vitiate adjudication.

Classification of the textile product depended on proof that the fabric had undergone heat setting; without that process, it could not be treated as bolting cloth under Heading 5911.20 and remained unproven as such on the material relied upon by Revenue. The article also notes that the adjudication was vitiated because the remand directions requiring cross-examination of the chemist and textile expert were not followed. As the classification issue rested on their evidence and on the factual process of manufacture, refusal of cross-examination breached natural justice and undermined the basis of the demand.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the fabrics manufactured by the assessee were classifiable as bolting cloth under Heading 5911.20 or remained nylon fabrics under Heading 5406; (ii) whether denial of cross-examination of the Chemist and textile expert vitiated the adjudication in view of the earlier remand directions.

Issue (i): Whether the fabrics manufactured by the assessee were classifiable as bolting cloth under Heading 5911.20 or remained nylon fabrics under Heading 5406.

Analysis: The classification dispute turned on the factual identification of the goods. The reasoning accepted that bolting cloth requires heat setting and that, unless that process is undertaken, the fabric does not attain the character of bolting cloth. In the absence of proof that heat setting had been carried out, the product could not be shifted from nylon fabric to bolting cloth merely on the basis of advertisements, trade understanding, or end use.

Conclusion: The product was not established to be bolting cloth under Heading 5911.20 and could not be sustained as such on the material relied upon by Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether denial of cross-examination of the Chemist and textile expert vitiated the adjudication in view of the earlier remand directions.

Analysis: The earlier remand required cross-examination of the expert witnesses whose opinions were relied upon in the adjudication. Since the classification issue depended on their evidence and on the factual question whether heat setting had been done, refusal to permit cross-examination amounted to a breach of natural justice and prevented proper determination of the very basis of classification.

Conclusion: The denial of cross-examination vitiated the adjudication and the remand directions were not properly followed.

Final Conclusion: The impugned orders could not be sustained, and the appeals succeeded with the classification and duty demands set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the classification of a textile product depends on proof of a specific manufacturing process, the adjudicating authority must comply with remand directions for cross-examination of relied-upon witnesses, and classification cannot rest merely on trade nomenclature or end use when the factual foundation is not established.

---