1996 (7) TMI 338

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ts on the ground that "controlled shirting" did not include the blend of 48% polyester and 52% cotton. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of various types of cloth including controlled shirting. The Department alleged that since controlled shirting manufactured by the appellants had a blend of 48% polyester and 52% cotton, therefore, this blend was not entitled to the exemption under Notification No. 251/82, dated 8-11-1982. 3. Shri Dinesh H. Mehta, the learned Advocate appearing for the appellants submits that fabrics have been defined in Clause (vi) of Notification No. 251/82 that will be eligible for concession. He submits that controlled shirting is specifically inc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... it has been further provided that in Paragraph 2 of Notification No. CER/1/68, dated 2nd May, 1968, the existing sub-para (d) shall be renumbered as (d-2) and after sub-para (d-1) so renumbered the word "or" shall be added and thereafter the following shall be inserted as sub-para (d-2). "(d-2) 'controlled shirting' means any type of cloth of plain or twill weave manufactured from single yarn which :- (i) is manufactured with blend percentage of 52% cotton and 48% polyester by weight." The learned Counsel submitted that by this amending notification both Paragraph 1 as well as Paragraph 2 have been amended. Para 1 has been amended inasmuch as an item as "(ix)" has been added and Para 2 of that Notification has been amended that contr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....may be upheld. 5. Heard the submissions of both sides. The admitted position in this case is that the controlled shirting manufactured by the appellants during the period February and March, 1984 had a blend of 48% polyester and 52% cotton. There is no dispute that controlled shirting was not eligible to the benefit of Notification No. 251/82. The limited dispute in this case is whether the blend of 48% polyester and 52% cotton used in the controlled shirting was eligible to the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 251/82. We find that Central Excise Notification referred to above inter alia provided that fabrics which answered the description of "controlled dhoti," "controlled saree," "controlled long-cloth", "controlled shi....