1999 (5) TMI 134

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . [Order per : P.C. Jain, Vice President], - Briefly stated facts of this case are as follows :- 1.1 The respondents herein are manufacturers of cotton fabrics and other fabrics falling under Chapters 52, 54, 55 and 84 of CETA, 1985. In respect of cotton fabrics falling under TSH 5206 and 5209 the respondents cleared the trade samples and availed exemption from payment of Central Excise d .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of samples drawn in excess of 0.1% of each sort of fabric. On adjudication, the demand of duty was confirmed. However, the respondents herein succeeded before the lower appellate authority. 1.3 The said authority has held that it appears from the show cause notice that each sort of the same variety of fabric has been considered as one sort or variety. Collector (Appeals) holds that it unjust .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rocessing. It is, therefore, urged that the impugned order is not correct as it gives different meaning to the 'sort' such as dhoty, long cloth etc. 3. We do not quite appreciate the grounds of appeal. The notification uses the word not only 'sort' but also `variety' of fabric. The word `variety' will have definitely different meaning from `sort', otherwise two different words with the same .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X