TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1985 (2) TMI 39
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itials A.B. stand for Aniline Black. The petitioners manufacture this umbrella cloth in different grades such as Superfine, Fine, Medium A, Medium B or Coarse. The petitioners use wax emulsion in order to make the fabric water-proof. After wax emulsion treatment the umbrella cloth of the petitioners is schreiner calendered at high temperature and under heavy pressure to produce silk like shine. As a result of schreiner calendering the pores or interstices are also filled up due to pressure; and wax-like emulsion melts at high temperature to form a uniform film which permeates right into the fabric. This material is sold by the petitioners as water-proof umbrella cloth. 2. Under notifications issued under the Central Excise Rules, 1944 the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ight difference in the description of the varieties of cotton fabrics. Cotton fabrics under this notification are divided into seven sub-categories instead of four and itemised as sub-items (a) to (g). In the present petition we are concerned with only sub-items (d) and (f) of this notification. Under sub-item (d) of this notification cotton fabrics which are covered are "Mercerised or/and water-proofed, whether rot-proofed or not (including rubberised) but not printed." Sub-item (f) is as follows : "Processed in any other manner including shrink-proofed and/or organdie processed but not printed." The difference in the rate of duty continues to be 15 paise between cotton fabrics covered by sub-items (d) and (f). According to the petitioners....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mbrella cloth cleared by them from 1st of April, 1968 to 23rd of October, 1968. In Appeal No. 31 of 1979 the period covered is from 24th October, 1968 to 30th June, 1969. The notices of demand which are the subject-matter of these two appeals relate to the above periods. In respect of these demand notices proceedings were taken before the Excise Authorities. By their final orders in revision the Excise authorities have decided the issue against the petitioners. The orders in revision were given after the petitions in the present case were filed. The petitioners have challenged the above orders of the respondents. 7. The only question which requires to be answered is whether umbrella cloth manufactured by the petitioners can be classified u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inology used in excise notifications relating to such tariff entries, must be interpreted in the manner in which they would be understood by the trading community to which such tariff entries and tariff notifications apply. As held by the Supreme Court in the case of Dunlop India Ltd. v. Union of India, reported in 1983 E.L.T. 1566 (S.C.) = AIR 1977 S.C. 597 at page 606, "Meanings given to articles in fiscal statute must be as people in trade and commerce, conversant with the subject, generally treat and understand them in the usual course.. Technical and scientific tests offer guidance only within limits. Once the articles are in circulation and come to be described and known in common parlance, we then see no difficulty for statutory clas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion. 9. Even if the technical tests relating to water-proofed material are to be gone into, the petitioners have produced several certificates issued from time to time by the Textile Commissioner to the effect that the umbrella cloth in question manufactured by the petitioners has been found to be water-proofed. The petitioners are required to obtain approval of "water-proofness" from the Textile Commissioner and the petitioners have obtained such approval from time to time. The petitioners have also submitted an affidavit of Dr. Brach H. Daruwall, Professor of Textile Chemistry and Director of the Department of Chemical Technology at the University of Bombay. In this affidavit Dr. Daruwall has stated that in the textile trade in India wa....