2017 (12) TMI 325

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he adjudicating authority confirmed the demand. Being aggrieved by the Order-in-Original appellant filed appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal after giving observations remanded the matter for denovo adjudication. In the Tribunals order it was directed to decide the classification depending upon predominance of the material. The Tribunal also observed that submission made by the appellant on chapter note No. 5(c) of Chapter 59 was not considered by the Commissioner. Ld. Commissioner in denovo adjudication classifying the fabric under 5907.12 confirmed the demand therefore appellant is before us. 2. Shri. Prakash Shah, Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that appellant is engaged in the Flock printing of fabric. They do flock printing ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on under heading 5907, there is no dispute that the Flock printing is in the form of design therefore product is not classifiable under 5907. As regard the limitation, he submits that show cause notice dated 15-3-2002 was issued for the period 1-4-1999 to September, 2001 invoking extended period however the fact of activity of flock printing was in the knowledge of the department. In this regard he referred to the letter dated 24-8-1999 issued by Meghana Creations to the Superintendent of Central Exicse regarding their activity of flock printing therefore there is no suppression of facts, Accordingly, demand is time bar. In support of his submission, he placed reliance on the following judgments: (a) Nizam Sugar Factory Vs. Collector of C....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....this regard he placed reliance on following judgments: (a) Maize Products Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad[1995(75)ELT 329] (b) Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad Vs. Maize Products[2003(151)ELT 484(S.C.)] (c) Venus Plywoods Pvt ltd Vs. Collector of C. Ex.[1991(52)ELT 319(Tri.)] (d) Voltas Ltd Vs. Collector of Customs, Bombay[1997(91)ELT 261(S.C.)] (e) O.K. Play (I) Ltd vs. Commissionero f C. Ex. Delhi-III(Gurgaon)[2004(171)ELT 378(Tri. Del.)] (f) Hydraulics Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai[2001(133)ELT 201(Tri. Chennai)] As regard the limitation, he submits that letter of M/s. Meghana Creations relied upon by the appellant has no relation with activity of present appellant therefore letter given of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....partly or fully with textile flock or with preparation contained textile flock, however as per chapter note 5(c) the fabric partly covered with flock and bears designs resulting from this treatment is excluded from heading 5907. From the combined reading of Tariff entry and chapter note 5(c)., we find that flock print on the fabric which resulted into design, the said flock printed fabric is excluded from heading 5907 and if the fabric is though printed with flock but it does not result into design, the said fabric will be classifiable under 5907. In this fact of the present case there is no dispute that flock printing was done for the purpose of design, therefore we are of the clear view that flock printed fabric with design is not classif....