TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2000 (8) TMI 168
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rics fell under sub-heading 5903.29. To this extent there is no dispute between the assessees and the department. During the period 1988-89 and 1989-90 Notification 63/87 prescribed the effective rate of duty on both varieties of fabrics processed. The relevant entries read as under : 02. 5903.19 Textile fabrics, impregnated, coated, covered or laminated with plastics. Rs. 6.50 per square metre plus the duty for the time being leviable on the base fabrics under Chapter 52, if not already paid. 03. 5903.29 Textile fabrics, impregnated, coated, covered or laminated with plastics. Rs. 8.00 per square metre plus the duty for the time being leviable on the base fabrics under Chapter 54 or 55, as the case may be, if not al....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he charge made in the show cause notice was crystallized by the Assistant Commissioner in the following words in his order :- "A reading of this notification makes it absolutely clear that for availing of the benefit of the said notification the base fabrics should fall under chapter 52 and the duty thereon should be paid". With this interpretation in mind he held that the assessees had failed to fulfil the condition in column No. 4 and therefore the differential duty was confirmed. Against this order the assessees filed an appeal. Before the Commissioner (Appeals) the citation of the Tribunal judgment in the case of Bhor Industries Ltd. - 1995 (78) E.L.T. 455 was made which had also been made before the Assistant Commissioner. We hav....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the impugned order. The grounds are the same as were made in the CO to the revenue appeal. 5.In both sets of appeals both sides have brought in aspects such as changes in the structure of the tariff and subsequent notifications such as 150/89 and 57/90 and have advanced extensive arguments on the capability of retrospective applications of those notifications. 6.We have considered the various submissions. 7.The short issue is the interpretation of the wording in column No. 4 in the notification against the two serial numbers. Admittedly the wording is such as to cause creation of some confusion. The wording pre-supposes that base textile fabrics when made of cotton were classifiable under chapter 52. A similar presumption as to cl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the base fabrics did not fall under chapters 52, 54 or 55, the benefit of these entries was not available. Any such interpretation would do harm to the interpretation of the notification. 8.This is what the Commissioner (Appeals) should have concentrated upon. Instead he went into the ratio of the Tribunal's judgment in the case of Bhor Industries which, strictly speaking, did not apply to the facts of the appeal before him and misled himself in classifying the end produce when he was neither called upon to do so nor was he required to do so. In doing so he overstepped the limits of the show cause notice rendering his own order untenable. 9.As we have observed above both sides have pointed out the subsequent amendments to the notifica....