1988 (9) TMI 221

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 2.  The matter originated in an order passed by the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise whereby he imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- upon the respondents and ordered the confiscation of seized goods comprising tufted cotton fabrics with the option to redeem the same on payment of a fine. The respondents filed an appeal before the Appellate Collector who in the impugned order accepted their contention and held that the subject goods were correctly classifiable under Tariff Item 68 since in the production of tufted bed cover there was neither any processing of fabrics nor weaving knitting nor stitching. The Appellate authority in his order observed that even the primary sheet was not made or woven with stape yarn and hence the goods in ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Shri L.C. Chakraborty, the learned JDR submitted that the fabrics used for the manufacture of the impugned goods were handloom cotton fabrics which with the use of acrylic or viscose yarn and with the help of a tufting machine makes the goods. He submitted that the composition of the finished product as recorded in the impugned order was 60% to 70% viscose/staple and 30% to 40% cotton. Referring to the Assistant Collector's order the learned representative pointed out that the respondents themselves accepted the pre-dominance of viscose. Shri Chakraborty also argued that the Appellate Collector was wrong in holding that there was neither processing the fabrics holding that the goods were classifiable under Tariff Item 68 and emphasised tha....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ctor's order for review there cannot now be a proposal to alter the classification. Shri Mookherjee also argued that in similar cases the Appellate Collector took similar views which were not reviewed; but asked to give details of such orders the Learned Advocate could not do so. 6.  Shri Chakraborty countered the arguments and submitted that the Tribunal can give alternate classification different from either of the classifications ordered by the Assistant Collector and the Appellate Collector. He argued with reference to the Heading of Items 19 & 22 CET that weaving was not a condition for classification under these items. 7.  We have considered the arguments of both sides. The factual position seems to be, as recorded in the ....