AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2000 (4) TMI 101
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on No. 20/99 with the description "in-soles, Midsolesand sheets thereof". 2.The Commissioner has taken a view that the item is in rolled form and cannot be considered to be falling within the description of the term "sheet" and in this regard, has taken note of Apex Court judgment rendered in the case of CC v. K. Mohan & Co. Exports as reported in 1989 (43) E.L.T. 811 (S.C.). 3. Arguing for appellants, Ld. Advocate Shri P.S.Raman strenuously pleaded that the Apex Court judgment is clearly distinguishable inasmuch as the Apex Court was considering the item 'plastic films' which could not be sold in cut form as it has to be in running length. The Apex Court distinguished the term of "Sheet" and "Sheetings" and held that plastic films be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....whether combined with any textile material or otherwise." The Revenue had taken a similar contention that the item was in rolls and it cannot be considered as 'sheets'. The Tribunal after considering the dictionary meaning of "sheet" had opined that "the fact that the goods are produced and marketed in rolls, would not, in our view, detract from the position that these are basic sheets which, from the convenience point of view, are packed and marketed in the form of rolls. It is not as though the product "would be a sheet only if it is cut into a square or rectangular shape." Therefore, he submits that this view of the Tribunal would apply to the facts and circumstances of the case and the Apex Court judgment is clearly distinguishable. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... taken into consideration the ruling of the Apex Court in K. Mohan & Co.Exports case. He submits that K. Mohan & Co.Exports' case is clearly applicable to the facts of the present case as the Apex Court has clearly noted the difference between the term 'sheets' and 'sheetings'. The Apex Court has held that the film rolls of indefinite length and not in the form of an individual cut piece can be more appropriately described as "sheetings" rather than "sheets". The Apex Court further observed that the goods in question can also not be covered by the expression "other rectangular or profile shapes" because the goods at the time of import were not cut to size but were in rolls. The Apex Court further held that since the articles in question has....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....into consideration while arriving at this conclusion. He submits that the above judgment of Tribunal in Plast Fab was in terms of understanding of PVC flocked sheets in rolls in terms of Import and Export Policy and not in terms of the terms in the said notification. 8.On a careful consideration, and on perusal of the entire order, we are of the considered opinion that the Apex Court's ruling rendered in the case of CC v. K. Mohan & Co. Exports is not distinguishable and the findings rendered by Apex Court in the context of description of the terms in the notification is pari-materia to the description available in the present notification under consideration. In all other judgments cited by the Counsel, the ruling of the Hon'ble Apex Co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng tubings and polyvinyl chloride sheets". 9.We are of the considered opinion that the findings rendered in MRF case by Order No. 299/83 dated 27-5-1983 was in the context of description available in item 16A(2)(ii) of the CET and not in terms of description in exemption notification, as has been specifically done by the Apex Court. Further, the Tribunal in these judgments including the other two judgments cited above, had not taken into consideration the effect of ruling of the Apex Court judgment rendered in CC v. K. Mohan & Co. Exports (supra). We are not in a position to distinguish the Apex Court's judgment and therefore, respectfully following the same, we have to hold that the item in question is only "sheetings" and not 'sheets c....