Fabric classification upheld for some, remitted for others. Importance of process and factual determination emphasized.

The judgment upheld the classification of fabrics under lists 11 & 12 but set aside the classification for other fabrics, directing a re-examination based on individual trade investigations for each classification list. The Tribunal ordered a remittance back to the Assistant Commissioner to re-determine whether the process in the appellants' premises converts the alleged straining cloth into 'Bolting Cloth' after heat setting, emphasizing the importance of maintaining mesh size and retention integrity for proper classification. The appeal was allowed, highlighting the need for factual determination of classification based on the specific processes undertaken by the appellants.

---

---

Issues: Classification of fabrics under tariff heading 59.09, Trade investigation for end-use determination, Re-examination of classification, Remittance of matter for factual determination of classification.

1. Classification of Fabrics under Tariff Heading 59.09:
The appellants, engaged in processing fabrics, filed classification lists excluding classification No. 11 and 12. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that the filter cloth manufactured by the appellants falls under heading 59.09. It was observed that detailed enquiries regarding end-use were not conducted for fabrics covered by other classification lists. The Assistant Collector incorrectly applied the limited enquiries' ratio to all fabrics, leading to an unsustainable conclusion. The judgment upheld the classification of fabrics under lists 11 & 12 but set aside the classification for other fabrics, directing a re-examination based on individual trade investigations for each classification list.

2. Trade Investigation for End-Use Determination:
The Tribunal considered the material presented by the appellant and noted a previous case where the matter was remitted for determining the classification under heading 5911.20. The judgment ordered a remittance back to the Assistant Commissioner to re-determine whether the process in the appellants' premises converts the alleged straining cloth into 'Bolting Cloth' after heat setting. It was emphasized that the process should not disturb the integrity of mesh size and retention, crucial for classifying as industrial fabric. The necessity to establish differences between Bolting Cloth and fabrics through heat setting was highlighted for a proper classification determination.

3. Re-examination of Classification and Remittance for Factual Determination:
The appeal was allowed in the above terms, emphasizing the need for a re-examination of the classification of fabrics covered by various lists. The matter was remitted back to the Assistant Commissioner to determine the factual aspects of the process undertaken in the appellants' premises, specifically focusing on whether the alleged straining cloth transforms into 'Bolting Cloth' after heat setting. The judgment stressed the importance of establishing the integrity of mesh size and retention to differentiate between Bolting Cloth and fabrics, necessitating a re-determination of the classification based on factual findings.

---