TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (1) TMI 1458
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d women narrow fabric elastics and claimed drawback of duty by classifying the goods under S. No. 580601 of Duty Drawback Schedule 2011-12. However, on inspection of the sample of the goods the Customs Officers opined that the applicant's goods were different from the S. No. 5806 and party mis-declared the product to avail the higher duty drawback. As per facts narrated in the show cause notice in this case, the applicant, vide their letter dated 11-10-2012, explained the nature of the products, submitted technical test report dated 9-10-2012 declaring the fibre contents of nylon, polyster and rubber threads which were used for making of the product. The applicant had also informed that the product was of 32 mm width and it is known as narr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the like of Heading 5404 or 5405, impregrated, coated, covered or sheathed with rubber of plastics". He also imposed penalty of Rs. 25260/- on the applicants. The applicant's appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) against the above stated Deputy Commissioner's Order is also rejected vide OIA No. CC(A)/279/2014, dated 31-3-2014. The Commissioner (Appeals) in his order has just observed that since the product is having both warp and weft as mentioned in the original order, its classification under 5806 is not possible and the product merits classification under 5604 of CTH as per reasoning given in paras 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the original order. 3. Being aggrieved the applicant has filed the present revision application ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....een passed by the lower authorities without appreciating the facts of the case and submission given by the applicant is found to be correct and true. As a result, the orders of the Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner (Appeals) are vitiated for this reason alone. 6. Apart from above, the applicant has pleaded that CTH 5806 has two parts and these are separated by a semi-colon. In support of their contention that semi-colon has an effect of separating two categories, the applicant has placed reliance on several decisions such as : * CC, Madras v. Mcdowell Co. Ltd. [1997 (94) E.L.T. 215 (Tribunal)] * Project & Development India Ltd. v. Collector of Customs - 1989 (42) E.L.T. 98, * Collector of Customs v. Escorts Ltd. - 1991 (5....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Deputy Commissioner of Customs and the Commissioner (Appeals) have given full thrust on second part of 5806, they have completely ignored the first part of the said sub-section. When the first part of sub-heading 5806 is considered dispassionately and fairly, it is evident that it covers all narrow woven fabrics other than covered under Heading 5807 and from a word "woven" used in the first part of description it is evident that this sub-heading is not allergic to the fabrics made of both warp and weft. Weaving of fabric is always by using both warp and weft and, therefore, the order of the Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner (Appeals) has suffered from their basic misunderstanding that the applicant's product made of both warp and we....