Tariff classification turns on fibre composition and market identity; fabric held outside cotton fabric entry.

Cotton fabric classification under the Central Excise Tariff depended on the tariff wording and the product's market identity. The Court applied the statutory test requiring cotton to predominate by weight, or the alternative condition of more than 40% cotton with 50% or more non-cellulosic fibre, and found neither was satisfied on the admitted fibre composition. It also applied the market-understanding principle and accepted that the fabric was not known in trade as cotton fabric but as man-made fabric. The fabric was therefore not classifiable as cotton fabric under Item 19.

---

---

Issues: Whether the fabric containing 33% polyester, 32% viscose and 35% cotton was classifiable as cotton fabric under Item 19 or as man-made fabric under Item 22 of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule.

Analysis: The tariff entries were held to be clear. To fall under cotton fabrics, cotton had to predominate in weight, or the statutory alternative condition of more than 40% cotton and 50% or more non-cellulosic fibre had to be satisfied. On the admitted composition, cotton did not exceed the combined weight of the other fibres and the alternative statutory condition was also not met. The Court also accepted the market understanding principle that an excise entry must ordinarily be construed in the sense in which the goods are known in the market, and the uncontroverted position was that the fabric was not known as cotton fabric but as man-made fabric.

Conclusion: The fabric was not classifiable as cotton fabric under Item 19 and the appeal by the Revenue failed.

Ratio Decidendi: In tariff classification, the statutory description must be applied according to its clear wording, and where a commodity is not known in the market by the claimed entry and does not satisfy the prescribed predominance or alternative statutory condition, it cannot be placed in that entry.

---