Specific tariff heading for rubberised textile fabrics prevails over general classification, defeating the related exemption claim.

Calendered fabrics impregnated, coated or covered with rubber and weighing 1500 gms per square metre were classified under Heading 59.05, because the specific tariff description for rubberised textile fabrics prevailed over the more general entry in Heading 40.05. On that classification, the claim to Notification No. 71/68 failed, since the exemption was tied to the rejected Chapter 40 classification. The lower authorities' classification was sustained and the exemption benefit was denied.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether calendered fabrics manufactured by the appellants were classifiable under sub-heading 4005.00 or under sub-heading 5905.00 of the Central Excise Tariff. (ii) Whether the appellants were entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 71/68 dated 1-4-1968.

Issue (i): Whether calendered fabrics manufactured by the appellants were classifiable under sub-heading 4005.00 or under sub-heading 5905.00 of the Central Excise Tariff.

Analysis: The dispute turned on the specific tariff description for rubberised textile fabrics and the corresponding chapter note. The goods were textile fabrics impregnated, coated or covered with rubber and weighed 1500 gms per square metre. The specific description in Heading 59.05 covered such rubberised textile fabrics, and that specific entry was held to prevail over the more general entry relied upon by the appellants.

Conclusion: The goods were held classifiable under sub-heading 5905.00 and not under sub-heading 4005.00, against the appellants.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellants were entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 71/68 dated 1-4-1968.

Analysis: The notification benefit was linked to the goods falling within the relevant Chapter 40 classification claimed by the appellants. Once the goods were held classifiable under Heading 59.05, the basis for claiming the exemption disappeared.

Conclusion: The benefit of Notification No. 71/68 was held not admissible to the appellants, against the appellants.

Final Conclusion: The classification adopted by the lower authorities was sustained and the exemption claim failed, so the appeal did not succeed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a tariff contains a specific heading for rubberised textile fabrics, that specific entry governs classification over a general entry, and exemption tied to the rejected classification cannot be claimed.

---