2014 (12) TMI 992

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....horized Representative (DR), for the Appellant. None, for the Respondent. ORDER The respondent are engaged in manufacture of processed fabrics falling under Chapters 52, 55 and 59 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Among the processed fabrics manufactured by them one type of processed fabrics is commonly known as Buckram. The respondent during June, 2003 cleared Buckram valued at Rs.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed along with interest and penalty of Rs. 10,000/- was imposed. In course of hearing before the Deputy Commissioner, the respondent pleaded that the goods manufactured by them were interlining fabrics i.e. the fabric quoted with plastic and though the same are commonly known as Buckram and were mentioned as such in the ER-1 return, the same are interlining fabrics for which the rate of duty under ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ional Range Superintendent, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the impugned goods are appropriately classifiable under Heading 5903 as "textile fabrics impregnated or coated with plastic" and have to be treated as interlining cloth during period from November, 2002. Accordingly, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the respondent would be eligible for lower rate of duty under Notification No. 7/....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ty @ 16% ad valorem. 4. We have considered the submissions of the learned DR and have gone through the records of this case. The impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is based on a verification report submitted by the Jurisdictional Central Excise Superintendent who has reported that since November, 2002, the respondent had stopped the manufacture of starch based stiffened fa....