Cotton fabric classification turns on construction, weight, and market usage, with duty recomputed on correct assessable value.

Cotton fabric known as "ded suti" was treated as duck variety fabric under Item 19-I(1) because its construction features, including double ends in warp, single yarn in weft, and weight within the duck range, aligned with that classification; market usage was relevant but not conclusive. The text also states that duty had to be recomputed on the correct assessable value, so the quantified demand could not stand until fresh determination by the assessing authority. The classification point was adverse to the assessee, while the valuation issue required recomputation.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the cotton fabric known as "ded suti" was classifiable as duck variety fabric under Item 19-I(1) or as a different variety under Item 19-I(2) of the Central Excise Tariff. (ii) Whether the duty had to be recalculated on the correct assessable value.

Issue (i): Whether the cotton fabric known as "ded suti" was classifiable as duck variety fabric under Item 19-I(1) or as a different variety under Item 19-I(2) of the Central Excise Tariff.

Analysis: The decisive factors were the construction particulars of the fabric and its market character. The fabric manufactured by the petitioners had double ends in warp and single yarn in weft, with weight in the range associated with duck variety fabrics. The order treated weight as an important factor in this category and found that the usage of the fabric also corresponded to duck fabrics. Market usage was regarded as relevant but not conclusive. The earlier view of the Allahabad High Court that "do suti" and "ded suti" are not distinguishable from duck was also relied upon.

Conclusion: The fabric was correctly classified as duck variety fabric under Item 19-I(1) of the Central Excise Tariff, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the duty had to be recalculated on the correct assessable value.

Analysis: The amount of duty was treated as a matter of fact requiring correct determination of assessable value. The order directed the assessing authority to arrive at the correct assessable value and quantify the duty accordingly.

Conclusion: The duty demand was not finally sustained in its quantified form and was directed to be recomputed, in favour of the assessee on this limited aspect.

Final Conclusion: The classification challenge failed, but the quantification of duty was sent back for fresh determination, leaving the substantive classification against the assessee and the duty amount open for recomputation.

Ratio Decidendi: In textile classification disputes, construction particulars and weight, along with relevant market understanding, may determine the tariff identity of the fabric, and duty must be assessed on the correct assessable value.

---