Predominance in weight controls fibre-based tariff classification; blended yarn fell to the residual entry when no fibre category prevailed.

For tariff entries requiring a fibre to predominate in weight, classification turns on whether the relevant man-made fibre category exceeds competing constituents on the actual composition. A blended yarn containing polyester, viscose and cotton at 48%, 47% and 5% was not classifiable under Item 18-III because viscose did not predominate, and it was also not classifiable under Item 18-E because predominance of non-cellulosic man-made fibre was not established. The yarn therefore fell under the residual Item 68. The limitation finding confining recovery to the normal period was maintained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the blended yarn, containing polyester, viscose and cotton in the proportions 48%, 47% and 5%, was classifiable under Item 18-III of the Central Excise Tariff; (ii) whether it was classifiable under Item 18-E of the Central Excise Tariff; and (iii) whether the correct classification was under Item 68, and whether the duty demand was confined to the normal period.

Issue (i): Whether the blended yarn, containing polyester, viscose and cotton in the proportions 48%, 47% and 5%, was classifiable under Item 18-III of the Central Excise Tariff.

Analysis: Item 18-III applies to cellulosic spun yarn in which man-made fibre of cellulosic origin predominates in weight. On the facts, only viscose fibre, at 47%, could answer that description. Since polyester fibre accounted for 48%, viscose did not predominate. Cotton could not be treated as man-made fibre of cellulosic origin for this purpose.

Conclusion: The goods were not classifiable under Item 18-III, and the classification adopted by the lower authorities on that basis was incorrect.

Issue (ii): Whether it was classifiable under Item 18-E of the Central Excise Tariff.

Analysis: Item 18-E applies to non-cellulosic spun yarn in which man-made fibres of non-cellulosic origin predominate in weight. The yarn contained only 48% man-made non-cellulosic fibre. On that composition, predominance was not established. The reasoning accepted in the earlier decision on predominance in weight was followed.

Conclusion: The goods were not classifiable under Item 18-E.

Issue (iii): Whether the correct classification was under Item 68, and whether the duty demand was confined to the normal period.

Analysis: Since the goods did not fall under either Item 18-III or Item 18-E, the residual entry under Item 68 applied. The plea for Item 68, though raised for the first time, was treated as a question of law integral to classification. The limitation finding restricting recovery to the normal period had already been made by the appellate authority and was upheld.

Conclusion: The yarn was classifiable under Item 68, and the duty demand remained restricted to the normal period as modified by the appellate authority.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded on classification, with the impugned yarn falling under the residual tariff entry rather than either of the specific fibre-based entries, while the limitation restriction on recovery was maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: For tariff entries that depend on a fibre predominating in weight, predominance requires the relevant fibre category to exceed the competing constituents on the facts of the composition; failing that, the goods fall to the appropriate residual entry.

---