Tariff classification of varnished cloth turns on trade identity and the actual coating material, not the department's label.

Varnished cloth was held not to fall within the excise entry for cotton fabrics impregnated, coated or laminated with cellulose derivatives or other plastic materials, because the coating was varnish rather than plastic material. The Board treated the product's commercial identity in trade, distinct appearance and separate use as relevant to tariff classification, and found that varnished cloth was not interchangeable with ordinary coated or laminated cotton fabrics. On that basis, the departmental classification was rejected and the excise duty demand was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether varnished cloth manufactured by the assessee was classifiable as cotton fabrics impregnated, coated or laminated with preparations of cellulose derivatives or other plastic materials, and whether the duty demand based on such classification was sustainable.

Analysis: The product was found to be a cotton fabric coated with varnish, not with cellulose derivatives or other plastic materials. The material evidence showed that varnish, though containing some synthetic resin, was not the same as plastic materials under the tariff description. The Board also accepted that varnished cloth was known in trade as a separate class of fabric with a distinct use and appearance, different from ordinary coated, impregnated or laminated cotton fabrics. On that basis, the material could not be brought within the tariff entry invoked by the department.

Conclusion: The classification adopted by the department was not justified and the demand could not stand.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the impugned order raising the excise duty demand was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: For tariff classification, the commercial identity of the product in trade and the actual nature of the coating material govern whether it falls within a specific excise entry.

---