Tariff classification of cotton fabric turned on whether surface-applied plastic amounted to impregnation or coating; writ relief was upheld.

Cotton fabric with only surface adherence of polythene powder was not treated as "impregnated" or "coated" with artificial plastic material for excise classification because the plastic did not substantially penetrate or fully cover the cloth. The Court applied a consistency-based approach to tariff interpretation and held that the product fell under the lower tariff entry, not Item 19(III), so the excise authorities' classification was set aside. The writ petition was also held maintainable despite the appellate route, because an appeal had already been filed but remained undecided for an unduly long period, causing prejudice and justifying writ relief. The excess duty collected was directed to be refunded.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner-firm's product was liable to excise duty as cotton fabrics impregnated or coated with artificial plastic material under Item 19(III) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, or fell under Item 19(I)(2)(f); (ii) Whether the writ petition was premature for failure to pursue the appellate remedy.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioner-firm's product was liable to excise duty as cotton fabrics impregnated or coated with artificial plastic material under Item 19(III) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, or fell under Item 19(I)(2)(f).

Analysis: The product was found to consist of cotton fabric with only an uneven surface application of polythene powder, without penetration into the body of the cloth or complete covering of the fabric. The materials on record, including the chemist's report, showed that the plastic granules merely adhered to the surface and did not amount to impregnation or coating in the sense required by the tariff entry. The Court also accepted the reasoning of the Allahabad High Court on a similar product and applied the principle of consistency in interpreting all-India taxing statutes.

Conclusion: The product did not fall under Item 19(III) and was chargeable under Item 19(I)(2)(f); the classification adopted by the excise authorities was incorrect and was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ petition was premature for failure to pursue the appellate remedy.

Analysis: The petitioners had already filed an appeal, which had been heard but remained undecided for an unduly long period before being transferred to another appellate authority. In these circumstances, the Court held that the alternative remedy could not bar writ relief, particularly where administrative delay in tax matters had caused serious prejudice.

Conclusion: The objection of prematurity was rejected and the writ petition was maintainable.

Final Conclusion: The impugned excise classification was quashed, the petition succeeded, and the respondents were directed to assess the product under the lower tariff entry and refund the excess duty collected.

Ratio Decidendi: A fabric does not become "coated" or "impregnated" under the tariff entry unless the plastic material substantially penetrates or covers the fabric in a manner contemplated by the entry; surface sprinkling or partial adherence is insufficient.

---