Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the spider cloth was classifiable as cotton fabrics impregnated with artificial plastic materials under Item 19-III of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule.
Analysis: The classification turned on the meaning of "impregnated fabric" in the tariff entry. The Tribunal accepted the textile dictionary definition relied on by the appellants, which described an impregnated fabric as one in which the interstices between the yarns are completely filled throughout the thickness of the material. The customs laboratory report showed that the samples had open interstices between the yarns and that water passed freely through them. On that basis, the material could not be treated as an impregnated fabric. The alternative suggestion that it might be a coated fabric was not examined, as that case had not been built before the lower authorities.
Conclusion: The spider cloth was not classifiable under Item 19-III as an impregnated fabric, and the finding of excisability on that basis was . The appeal succeeded and consequential relief was directed.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a tariff entry uses the expression "impregnated fabrics" without defining it, the expression must be applied in accordance with its accepted textile meaning, and a material with open interstices through which water passes freely does not satisfy that description.