TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (6) TMI 705
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to as 'the Tariff Act') or under Heading 5903 of the Tariff Act.- 3. The WBAAR, in its Ruling No. 33/WBAAR/2019-20 dated 11.11.2019 = 2019 (11) TMI 768 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, WEST BENGAL, while holding that fusible interlining cloth is classifiable under sub-heading 5903 of Tariff, has observed as follows : (i) In its Circular No. 24/Coated Fabric/88-CX.1 dated 02/09/1988, the CBEC came up with an answer by referring to the production process. The finished woven fabric passed over pre-heated rolls having a high surface temperature. The heated substance was then pressed to a printing roll having fine dots engraved on it. High-density polyethylene powder was taken in a hopper that sat on the engraved printing roll, filling the dots. As a result, the pre-heated fabric got printed with plastic dots. The powder in between the engraved dots was scrapped by a doctor blade provided in the hopper. The dot printed cloth then passed through a heated chamber where the plastic melted and fused with the piece of cloth. CBEC concluded that the fusible interlining merited classification under Heading 5903 if the above printing process covered one side of the fabric with a con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....order dated 05/01/2009 in WA No. 507 of 2005, refrained from expressing any view on the legality of the said Circular so that the assessing office could apply his judgment without any bias. The court however, set aside the impugned Circular that the assessing officer had quoted in a show cause notice in violation of the provisions of Section 37B of the CEA'44. Such setting aside of the impugned Circular restored the SCN. The Division Bench however, categorically stated that it was not done on the ground that the circular is ultra vires. (vii) It therefore, appears that reference to the Single Bench judgment in the above mentioned case does not help in deciding the classification of the applicant's product. The fact that CBEC appealed against the Single Bench judgment in 2005 also indicates that it continues defending Circular No. 433/66/98-CX-6 dated 27/11/1998 and has not made any further course correction. Circular No. 433/66/98-CX-6 dated 27/11/1998, therefore, reflects CBEC's view on the classification of fusible interlining cloth as on date. (viii) It appears from the production process described above that fusible interlining cloth satisfies the conditions f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the textile materials contained therein. e) In the case of Madura Coats vs. CBEC reported in 2004 (163) ELT 164 (Mad) = 2003 (9) TMI 98 - MADRAS HIGH COURT, the purported Circular bearing No. 433/66/98-CX dated 27.11.1998 had been challenged, which stated that the deletion or omission of Chapter Note 2(c) of the Excise Tariff did not result in changing the classification of Fusible Interlining Cloth under Heading 59.03. The circular was quashed in the High Court decision. Hence, this Circular should not have been relied upon by the WBAAR, while passing the ruling. f) In the case of Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. reported in 1999 (107) ELT 488 (T) = 1998 (10) TMI 183 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI, similar view as that of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the Madura Coat case was taken. g) Classification of a product can never be decided by merely referring to circulars issued by revenue from time to time and without considering the terms of the applicable tariff. h) The applicant's stand is duly supported by Rules 2(b) and 3 of the General Rules for the Interpretation of the Schedule, as applicable to the Tariff Act. 5. During the cours....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cates that for a product to be classified under the above sub-heading, it has to be a woven fabric of cotton. Woven fabric is any textile formed by weaving or interlacing two or more threads at right angles to one another. We have examined the sample of the fusible interlining cloth placed before us. It is seen that the product is textile coated with plastic on one of its sides. It is evident from the sample as well as the dot printing process of manufacture as elaborated in Circular No. 24/Coated Fabric/88-Cx.1 dated 02/09/1988 of CBEC that no process of weaving or interlacing is involved in manufacture of the item. Whereas the process of weaving gives rise to a fabric, the dot printing process starts with a finished woven fabric. Thus, evidently fusible interlining cloth manufactured through dot printing process cannot be classified under sub-heading 5208 which contains only woven labrics or cotton. 10. The appellant also claimed during hearing that their product merits classification under sub-heading 5209 or 5212, if not under 5208. We find that similar logic as in the case of Sub-heading 5208 applies in respect of the Sub-headings 5209 and 5212 also. Sub-heading ....