2018 (10) TMI 1249

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sifiable under heading no.3920.39 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and confirmed demand of duty of Rs. 25,72,389/- on clearance effected from April 1995 to August 1997, with appropriate interest thereon, besides imposing a penalty of Rs. 12,00,000/- under rule 52A (8) of Central Excise Rules, 1944. Penalty of Rs. 13,26,532/- under section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 on M/s.Pee Tee Extrusion Products Pvt Ltd, and further penalty of Rs. 2,50,000/- on Shri Prakash Mehta, Managing Director were also imposed. In addition, demand of Rs. 8,35,513/-, with appropriate interest, was also confirmed in disposing off show-cause notice dated 30th November 2000. 2. It is the contention of Learned Counsel for the appellant that ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pute that flock printing done by the appellant on the fabric is in the form of design. The tariff entry and relevant Chapter 5(c) are reproduced below : As per tariff entry though after the main heading with one dash description is given as fabric covered 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 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Tri.-Del.)] (f) Hydraulics Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai [2001 (133) E.L.T. 201 (Tri.-Chennai)] From above decision, we are of the considered view that after rejection of the proposal of the department regarding classification of subject goods under 5907, correct classification under 52, 54, 55 must be arrived at. This aspect has not been considered by the adjudicating authority. There is also a dispute that if the flock printing is done without aid power then product may not be dutiable, however, this also the matter of facts which require a relook. In the above position of the case, we are of the view that now adjudicating authority must decide correct classification under Chapter 52/54/55 and thereafter, aspect of d....