1985 (3) TMI 287 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of the goods as "furnishing fabrics" or "chaddars."
2. Applicability of duty rates under different sub-items of Item 19 of the Central Excise Tariff.
3. Validity of the penalties imposed under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules.
4. Adequacy and relevance of the evidence presented by both parties.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of the Goods as "Furnishing Fabrics" or "Chaddars":
The primary issue was whether the seized fabrics were "furnishing fabrics" falling under Item 19I(1) or "chaddars" falling under Item 19I(2) of the Central Excise Tariff. The Collector held that the fabrics could be utilized for furnishing purposes and decorative purposes, including curtains, thereby classifying them under Item 19I(1). The appellants contended that the goods were chaddars in length or chaddar cloth, meant for use as bed spreads, and not furnishing fabrics.

2. Applicability of Duty Rates:
The classification under Item 19I(1) attracted a higher duty rate and excluded the goods from the benefit of assessment at the compounded levy rate. The appellants argued that the goods should fall under Item 19I(2), which carried a lower duty liability. The tribunal noted that the burden was on the Excise authorities to prove that the goods fell within the higher duty category under Item 19I(1).

3. Validity of Penalties Imposed:
Penalties were imposed on the nine manufacturer appellants under Rule 9(2) for allegedly removing "furnishing fabrics" without proper duty payment. The Collector also ordered the confiscation of seized fabrics and demanded additional duty payments. The appellants argued that the penalties were unsustainable, particularly because the issue was debatable and the Department had taken six months to issue the show-cause notice.

4. Adequacy and Relevance of Evidence:
The tribunal examined various pieces of evidence, including:
- Technical Reports: Reports from the Deputy Chief Chemist, the Textile Commissioner, and the VJTI were inconclusive and did not categorically support the classification as furnishing fabrics.
- Witness Testimonies: The Department's witnesses, including wholesalers, described the goods as "jacquard cloth" or "tapestry powerloom cloth." However, the appellants' witnesses and letters from Chambers of Commerce supported the classification as chaddars.
- Market Enquiries and Usage: The Chemical Examiner suggested that market enquiries and actual usage should determine the classification, but this was not sufficiently addressed.

Conclusion:
The tribunal concluded that the evidence presented by the Department was insufficient to sustain the finding that the goods were furnishing fabrics. The classification, demands for duty, and personal penalties were set aside. The tribunal allowed all ten appeals and directed that consequential relief be granted. The reasoning applied equally to the Order-in-Appeal of the Central Board of Excise and Customs, which relied on the Collector's order.