9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (11) TMI 298X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Asstt. Commissioner found on visual examination of the sample and the technical details furnished by the appellants that the classification thereof will be more appropriately under Heading 59.07 for which another ground was that the basic fabric was obtained from M/s. Tata Textiles, Mumbai. This order of the Asstt. Commissioner was challenged in appeal. The Commissioner (Appeals) has held in the impugned order that Note 1 to Chapter 59 of CETA provided that for the purposes of this Chapter, expression textile fabrics applies only to the woven fabrics of Chapters 50 to 55 and the Commissioner (Appeals) has noted that the Asstt. Commissioner has considered the product as woven because it has been supplied by M/s. Tata Textiles and also on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ni, the ld. DR for the department referred to the order of the lower authority wherein it has been found that the material consists of woven cotton which would justify its classification under Chapter 59. 4. We have carefully considered the submissions. The goods are described as charcoal coated non-woven fabrics and the question is whether they could be considered as non-woven fabrics for being excluded from Chapter 59. The order-in-appeal has also emphazised the fact that the fabric has been found to have woven cotton in its composition. However, it is noted that this is only on the basis of visual examination of the sample of the fabrics by the Asstt. Commissioner. There is no consideration of technical authorities and there has been n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere fact that the basic fabric was supplied by M/s. Tata Textiles cannot be determinative factor in arriving at the classification of the product. It is also relevant in this context to consider the claim of the appellants that identical product is being assessed under Heading 56.03 by the department for other manufacturers. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the matter needs to be looked into afresh for determining the correct classification of the charcoal coated non-woven fabrics in this case. Apart from the above observation, the fact also remains that in this case the Commissioner (Appeals) has arrived at a different conclusion and classified the goods under a heading different from that claimed by the appellants and also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
