Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether Permaline Fire Hose, being a textile hose pipe coated with rubber/PVC on both sides, was classifiable under Heading 59.07 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 or under Heading 4009.92 of the same Tariff.
Analysis: The product was manufactured as a synthetic textile jacket woven on circular looms and then impregnated with rubber/PVC compound on the inner and outer sides. The composition and manufacturing process showed that the article remained essentially a textile hose pipe and was not a tube, pipe or hose of vulcanised rubber. Heading 40.09 covered rubber hoses and excluded textile tubes and hoses that had been waterproofed or coated with rubber. By contrast, Heading 59.07 covered textile hose piping and similar textile tubing, including textile tubing coated or impregnated with rubber or plastics. As the product was an article of textile falling in Section XI, it was outside Chapter 40 and fell within Heading 59.07.
Conclusion: Permaline Fire Hose was correctly classifiable under Heading 59.07 and not under Heading 4009.92. The classification adopted by the Department was set aside.
Ratio Decidendi: A textile hose pipe retains its character as textile hose piping for tariff purposes even if coated or impregnated with rubber on both sides, and such a product is classified under the textile heading rather than as a vulcanised rubber hose.