TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (2) TMI 143
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ere exempted from payment of basic duty by virtue of Notification 63/87, dated 1st March 1987 as amended. The assessee, however, was still liable to pay additional duty which was duly paid. 2.On the allegation that the goods were classifiable under Tariff Heading 59.09 a show cause notice was issued to the appellants by the respondent authority seeking to levy Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 17,88,76,842/- comprising of basic duty of Rs. 15,55,45,080/- and special duty of Rs. 2,33,31,762/-. Penalty was also sought to be imposed under 173Q. During the pendency of the matter before the Commissioner a sample of what was stated to be the respondent's goods was sent to the National Test House. The test report showed that the sample recei....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cable. 3.The Commissioner rejected the submissions of the assessees and confirmed the demand as raised in the show cause notice and imposed penalty of the equivalent amount. The appellant preferred an appeal before the Central Excise Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT). The CEGAT remanded the matter to the Commissioner being of the view that the appellant had not been provided with sufficient opportunity to produce documents before the adjudicating authority in support of its submission that it was using high tenacity yarn in the manufacture of its fabrics. 4.When the matter came back to the Commissioner the appellant reiterated the points noted earlier. Relying solely on the test report, the Collector again rejected the appella....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that tyre cord fabrics would, before processing be appropriately covered by Tariff Heading 52.04. Applying the same reasoning, it is contended that the appellant's fabrics being also unprocessed and should be classified under Tariff Heading 54.08 since the yarn with which the fabric was woven was not cotton but nylon. It is submitted that Tariff Heading 59.09 does not in any event cover unprocessed fabric. It is pointed out that the appropriate heading should have been 54.08 which at the relevant time prescribed a nil rate of duty. Finally, it is submitted that the claim of the respondent authority was time bared. 6.Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent authority has submitted that the appellant had nor produced adequate ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....red to in 59.09 are different from textile fabrics because they would by definition be the product of textile fabrics and not the fabrics themselves. Furthermore, if one reads Section Notes 5 and 6 of Section XI as they then stood along with Tariff Heading 59.09 it is clear that Tariff Heading 59.09 applies to 'made up fabrics' and not 'fabrics' which have been processed in some fashion. Therefore, the unprocessed fabric, as the appellant's goods admittedly are, would not be classifiable under Tariff Heading 59.09. 10.Additionally, the appellant had claimed the classification under Tariff Heading 59.02 which reads as follows : "Tyre cord fabric of high tenacity yarn of polyamides polyesters or viscose rayon". 11.Assuming that the t....