1993 (2) TMI 192 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of the product "Bleached sheetings of cotton fabrics."
2. Applicability of Notification No. 57/87-C dated 1-3-1987.
3. Interpretation of Heading 59.01 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.
4. Validity of the appeal under Section 35E(4) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

Summary:

1. Classification of the product "Bleached sheetings of cotton fabrics":
The assessee classified their product under Heading No. 52.06 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, and cleared it at a concessional rate of duty u/s Notification No. 57/87-C dated 1-3-1987. The Revenue argued that the product should be classified under sub-heading 5901.10 due to its stiff finish and characteristics similar to Buckram, as reported by the Chemical Examiner. The Assistant Collector initially dropped the proceedings based on a retest report stating the product may not fall under Chapter 59. However, the Revenue appealed, asserting that the product met the specific description of Heading 59.01.

2. Applicability of Notification No. 57/87-C dated 1-3-1987:
The assessee relied on Board's instructions and a letter from the Ministry of Finance, which clarified that such cotton fabrics, even after processing, remained porous and were not liable for classification as coated or impregnated fabrics. The learned Collector upheld the classification under Chapter 52 based on these clarifications.

3. Interpretation of Heading 59.01 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985:
The Revenue argued that the product should be classified under Heading 59.01, which covers textile fabrics coated with gum or amylaceous substances, including those used for book binding. They contended that the stiffened fabrics similar to Buckram should be classified under this heading. The assessee countered that the product was not permanently stiffened, and the interstices were not filled, thus not meeting the criteria for classification under Chapter 59.

4. Validity of the appeal under Section 35E(4) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944:
The learned Advocate for the assessee argued that the appeal was not maintainable as the department had not initially raised the ground that the goods were Buckram. The Tribunal upheld this contention, noting that the grounds for determination before the Collector (Appeals) did not include the product being Buckram, and thus, this point could not be raised at this stage.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the appeal by the Revenue was not maintainable as the grounds raised were not part of the original determination by the Collector (Appeals). On merits, the Tribunal found no evidence to support the classification of the product under Chapter 59 and upheld the classification under Chapter 52, rejecting the Revenue's appeal.