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 the goods described as tarpaulin cloth were classifiable under Heading No. 52.07 or under Heading No. 59.06 of the Central Excise Tariff, and whether the matter required remand for re-examination in the light of the chemical examiner's report and the Board's circular.
Analysis: The record contained a chemical examiner's opinion that the sample was base cotton fabric heavily impregnated with paraffin wax, earthy matter and inorganic compounds, with impregnation visible to the naked eye. The appellate authority had rejected that opinion on the basis that there was no visible layer formation. The Board's Circular No. 59/4/90 clarified that, for classification under Heading No. 59.06, the relevant consideration was whether the waterproofing or impregnation resulted in a visible layer on the surface of the fabric. In view of the unclear treatment of the expert report and the need to correlate the factual finding with the legal test under Chapter Note 5(a), the classification issue required fresh examination.
Conclusion: The matter was remanded for de novo consideration and fresh speaking order, and the Revenue's appeal succeeded to that extent.