9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (8) TMI 190X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he record. 2. Briefly stated, the facts are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of cotton fabrics and man-made fabrics classifiable under Items Nos. 19 and 22 respectively of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (the Schedule is hereinafter referred to as the CET ). They filed a classification list dated 31-10-1979 in respect of Sort No. 600010 - fabrics described as polyester cotton warp voil containing 54% polyester and 46% cotton at grey stage and 100% polyester after processing. The appellants claimed classification of the goods under Item No. 22(1) of the CET. However, the Assistant Collector, under his order dated 11-3-1980, directed that in addition to the duty payable on the final processed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... har, in his submissions, however, contended that the Supreme Court in the Calico Mills case (supra) was not concerned with the excisability of the intermediate product but of the final product having cotton content of about 38.48% and artificial silk content of 61.52%, conforming to the requirements laid down in Item No. 22 CET. Shri Sachar sought to distinguish the facts of the present case by stating that the point at issue herein was the dutiability of the intermediate product and not of the final product which was not in dispute. So long as intermediate product emerged in the course of manufacture and it conformed to the description and prescription in the Central Excise Tariff Schedule, it became taxable under that item even though the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase, the issue before the Supreme Court was the classification, and the dutiability of the final product which the department ought to classify and charge duty on, based on its character at the intermediate stage of production. In the case before us, the issue is different. There is no dispute as to the classification and dutiability of the final product under Item No. 22 CET. It is the classification and dutiability of the product containing 54% polyester and 46% cotton (from which the final product is made) that is in issue. Having regard to the composition there is no doubt that the product fell under Item No. 19(I)(b) CET. We cannot read from the Supreme Court s judgment that if in the course of production of goods which are removed out ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
