https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40473 Cotton fabric with only surface adherence of polythene powder was not treated as "impregnated" or "coated" with artificial plastic material for excise classification because the plastic did not substantially penetrate or fully cover the cloth. The Court applied a consistency-based approach to tariff interpretation and held that the product fell under the lower tariff entry, not Item 19(III), so the excise authorities' classification was set aside. The writ petition was also held maintainable despite the appellate route, because an appeal had already been filed but remained undecided for an unduly long period, causing prejudice and justifying writ relief. The excess duty collected was directed to be refunded. en-us Wed, 11 Dec 1974 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 08 May 2010 16:05:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40473 Cotton fabric with only surface adherence of polythene powder was not treated as "impregnated" or "coated" with artificial plastic material for excise classification because the plastic did not substantially penetrate or fully cover the cloth. The Court applied a consistency-based approach to tariff interpretation and held that the product fell under the lower tariff entry, not Item 19(III), so the excise authorities' classification was set aside. The writ petition was also held maintainable despite the appellate route, because an appeal had already been filed but remained undecided for an unduly long period, causing prejudice and justifying writ relief. The excess duty collected was directed to be refunded. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 11 Dec 1974 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40473