Notification No. 30/95-CE dated 16.3.95- Clarification regarding - Central Excise - 241/75/96-CX

Circular No. 241/75/96-CX dated 3/9/96 F.No. 58/4/96-CX.I Government of India Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi Subject: Notification No. 30/95-CE dated 16.3.95- Clarification regarding I am directed to say that a doubt has been raised on the interpretation of Notification No. 30/95-CE dated 16.3.95 (S.No. 1) regarding exemption to certain narrow woven fabrics falling within Ch. 58 from Central Excise duty and/ or additional duty of customs The Commissioner (Customs), madras has sought to apply the Notification No. 30/95-CE dated 16.3.95(S.No. 1) only to narrow woven fabrics (having a width not exceeding 30 cm) not containing elastomeric yarn or rubber thread on the following varieties only:- a) Pile Fabrics b) Chenile Fabrics c) Tufted Towelling and similar Woven Terry Fabrics d) Tufted Textile Fabrics Plain narrow woven fabrics of variety other than the aforesaid varieties have been denied the benefit to notification No. 30/95 and subjected to additional duty of Customs at tariff rates at the time of its import. On an appeal filed by the party, CEGAT Madras Bench in its order No. 934/1996 dated 25.6.96 has held that the first two items covered in the notification No. 30/95(S.No.1) i.e. Woven Pile Fabrics Chenille Fabrics fall under 58.02. After each item there is a coma. Thereafter narrow woven fabrics are also mentioned, which is mentioned after a coma. Therefore it is clear that this has to be read as disjunctively as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shri N.K. Salpekar vs. Sri Sunil Kumar (AIR 1988 SC 1841, 1813 1844), Sri A.K. Gopalan vs. State of Madras (AIR 1950 SC 27 45) and Sh. Mohd. Shabbir vs. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1979 SC 564 565). Therefore the CEGAT has viewed that since there is a coma and after that coma the narrow Woven Fabrics are mentioned, the same are to be read disjunctively and the reasoning that narrow woven fabrics ought of fall in the general clause of the preceding five items cannot be held to be correct. The matter has also been further examined by the Board and the Board has accepted the above said interpretation of Notfn. No. 30/95 given by the CEGAT. Sd/ (S.C.Bhatia) Under Secretary to the Government of India