Representative sample test results upheld classification of cellulosic spun yarn under the higher fibre-content tariff entry.

Notice of hearing was found to have been duly issued and endorsed to counsel, and the appellant's own communication confirmed attendance on the scheduled date, so the plea of denial of personal hearing failed. The chemical test and Central Revenue Control Laboratory retest both showed non-cellulosic fibre content above one-sixth by weight in the representative sample, and the alternative textile commissioner's report was not shown to concern the same goods or sampling method. On that basis, the yarn was correctly classifiable under Item No. 18-III(ii) of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellant was denied an opportunity of personal hearing before the appellate authority. (ii) Whether the cellulosic spun yarn was correctly classified under Item No. 18-III(ii) of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff on the basis of the test results showing non-cellulosic fibre content of more than one-sixth by weight.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant was denied an opportunity of personal hearing before the appellate authority.

Analysis: The record showed that notice of hearing was issued, also endorsed to counsel, and sent by registered post acknowledgment due. The appellant's own communication confirmed that the hearing had taken place on the scheduled date. On these facts, the plea of opportunity was unsupported.

Conclusion: The plea of denial of personal hearing was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the cellulosic spun yarn was correctly classified under Item No. 18-III(ii) of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff on the basis of the test results showing non-cellulosic fibre content of more than one-sixth by weight.

Analysis: The sample drawn for chemical test and the subsequent retest in the Central Revenue Control Laboratory both showed that the non-cellulosic fibre content exceeded one-sixth by weight when calculated on the total fibre content. The alternative textile commissioner's report was not shown to relate to the same goods or to a sample drawn in the same manner, and the manufacturing process was not shown to have changed during the relevant period. The test results were therefore treated as reliable for classification.

Conclusion: The yarn was correctly classifiable under Item No. 18-III(ii) of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on both the procedural objection and the merits of classification, leaving the departmental view undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Classification of the goods depends on the reliable test result of the representative sample, and where the sample and retest establish that non-cellulosic fibre exceeds one-sixth by weight, the goods fall under the tariff entry for that higher fibre-content category.

---