2011 (8) TMI 174 - AT - Customs

Appellate tribunal affirms lower duty rate for imported fabric, not qualifying as upholstery fabric under specific notification.

CC, ICD, TKD, New Delhi Versus M/s. Indo Shyam Industries

The appellate tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision in a case concerning the classification of imported fabric under Notification ... Classification - Benefit of Notification No.14/2005 - Import of jacquard mattress ticking fabric - it is seen that mattress ticking fabric is not covered by the definition of upholstery fabric - It is admitted legal position if the definition is given in the notification, the same is required to be adhered to instead of adopting the definition from other field - It is not the Revenue s case that mattress ticking fabric falls under the definition as reproduced - As such, do not find any infirmity in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), the appeal filed by the Revenue is accordingly rejected. Issues:Interpretation of Notification No.14/2005 regarding the classification of imported fabric as upholstery fabric for duty calculation.Analysis:The case involved a dispute over the classification of jacquard mattress ticking fabric imported by the respondent under Notification No.14/2005. The Revenue contended that the fabric should be classified as upholstery fabric attracting a higher duty rate under serial no.102 of the notification. However, a visual examination and a report from the Textile Committee confirmed that the fabric was indeed mattress ticking fabric as declared by the importer.Subsequently, proceedings were initiated against the appellants for differential duty assessment based on the classification of the fabric as upholstery fabric. The original adjudicating authority upheld this classification relying on website information. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) disagreed with this classification, considering evidence such as a certificate from the supplier stating the specific use of the fabric in mattress manufacturing by the importer.The key issue revolved around whether the benefit of the notification, particularly serial No.103, could be extended to mattress ticking fabric. The Commissioner (Appeals) emphasized the importance of adhering to the explanation provided in the notification itself rather than seeking external definitions. Since the notification did not categorize mattress ticking fabric as upholstery fabric, the benefit was extended to the respondent.The appellate tribunal, in its judgment, highlighted the definition of upholstery fabric as per the notification, which excluded mattress ticking fabric based on its specific use. It emphasized that adherence to the notification's definitions is crucial and rejected the Revenue's appeal, affirming the Commissioner (Appeals) decision. The tribunal concluded that since the fabric did not fall under the definition of upholstery fabric as per the notification, the lower duty rate applied, and no error was found in the Commissioner's decision.