1996 (5) TMI 201 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Classification of "sandwich bonded fabrics" under the Central Excise Tariff.

Detailed Analysis:

1. The appeal concerns the classification of "sandwich bonded fabrics" manufactured by a company. The Collector classified the fabrics under Tariff Item number 19(III) or 22(3) based on the base fabric classification, while the appellant argued for classification under Tariff Item No. 68. The appellant's advocate, F. Sorabjee, contended that the bonding process did not amount to impregnation, coating, or lamination, citing technical details from various sources to support the argument.

2. The appellant claimed that they had previously manufactured similar fabrics classified under Tariff Item 68, and the sudden change in classification by the authorities was improper. Additionally, there were discrepancies in the demand calculation, which the appellate authority did not address.

3. The Departmental Representative argued that the goods fell under Tariff Entries 19(III) or 22(3) and referred to factual test results. The representative asserted that bonded fabrics were indeed laminated fabrics, citing a Supreme Court judgment for support.

4. The advocate raised concerns about the incorrect quantification of the demand and the lack of transparency in the calculation methodology.

5. The Tribunal carefully considered the arguments and evidence presented by both sides.

6. The main issue was the classification of "sandwich bonded fabrics" and whether they should be classified under Tariff Item 68 as claimed by the appellant. The Tribunal examined the arguments based on the Central Excise Tariff and international classifications.

7. The Tribunal reviewed various materials, including the Fairchild Dictionary of Textiles, to understand the process of foam lamination and bonding. The definitions and descriptions supported the classification of the fabrics as laminated products.

8. References to industry sources and technical definitions further reinforced the argument that the bonding process was a form of lamination.

9. The Tribunal analyzed the general definition of lamination from standard textile dictionaries and concluded that bonding was a variation of the lamination process.

10. The Tribunal upheld the classification of the fabrics under Tariff Item 19(III) or 22(3) based on the classification of the base fabric, rejecting the appellant's claim for classification under Tariff Item 68.

11. The Tribunal addressed the appellant's grievance regarding the change in settled classification by the department, stating that as long as proper notice was given, there was no basis for complaint.

12. The Tribunal discussed discrepancies in the Show Cause Notice and the classification lists, indicating a need for further examination by the original authority.

13. The Tribunal highlighted issues related to the calculation of duty, which required investigation by the original authority.

14. The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, upholding the classification under Tariff Item 19(III) or 22(3) and remanding the matter to the original authority for re-determination of the duty for fabrics manufactured under Sort No. 48.