Classification of foam patti as laminated textile fabric failed where the notice and evidence did not support the duty demand.

Side trimmings sold as foam patti were not proved to be laminated textile fabrics under Heading 59.03. The goods were cleared by weight as waste and scrap, and the remand required a determination on their true classification. The demand could not be sustained because the lower authorities proceeded on the basis that the goods were chindies, although the show cause notice had proceeded on sub-standard or damaged fabrics. The chemical report only described the samples as strips of non-uniform width and did not conclusively establish laminated textile fabric. The duty demand was therefore unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the side trimmings sold as foam patti were classifiable as laminated textile fabrics under Heading 59.03 and liable to central excise duty.

Analysis: The disputed goods were generated as side trimmings and cleared by weight as waste and scrap. The remand direction required determination whether the product was laminated textile fabric or otherwise, but the lower authorities proceeded on the footing that the goods were chindies, a basis not alleged in the show cause notice. The notice had proceeded on the case that the goods were sub-standard or damaged fabrics, so the demand could not be sustained on a different classification foundation. The chemical report described the samples as strips of non-uniform width and did not conclusively establish that the goods were laminated textile fabrics.

Conclusion: The foam patti was not proved to be classifiable as laminated textile fabrics, and the duty demand was unsustainable.

---