9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (5) TMI 162X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hereafter. 1.1 Revenue has contended that these are classifiable under Tariff Heading 59.03 whereas the learned Advocate, Shri A.R. Madhav Rao for the Appellants submits that these are classifiable under Chapter Heading 3922.90. Learned Advocate has produced before us a sample. It is the submission of the appellants counsel that Note 2(a)(3) of Chapter 59 excludes the products from classification under Tariff Heading 59.03, if the textile fabric is either completely embedded in plastics or entirely coated or covered on both sides with such material, provided that such coating or covering can be seen with the naked eye with no account being taken of any resulting change of colour. Learned Advocate submits that the adjudicating authority h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 18/86-CX. 3, dated 26-5-1986 which holds that fabrics coated or covered with plastics on both sides would, by virtue of Note 2(a)(3) of Chapter 59 would be classifiable under Chapter 39 and not in Chapter 59 of Central Excise Tariff. He further submits that it was this classification of the Board which was also noted by the Superintendent in his letter dated 18-7-1986 addressed to the appellants herein confirming classification of the product under Chapter 39. Learned Advocate, therefore, submits that on merits the goods are classifiable under Tariff Heading 3922.90 and not 59.03 as held by the adjudicating authority. 1.5 Arguing on the limitation, learned Advocate submits that at the show cause notice stage there was no allegation of col ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubmits that the finding of collusion given by the Collector is not at all tenable in view of the fact that no action has been taken against the officers who are alleged to have colluded. Further they have not been made noticees in the proceedings initiated by the Department resulting in the impugned order. He, therefore, submits that the charge of collusion cannot be sustained and the inference of collusion drawn by the Collector on the basis of the aforesaid circumstances is merely inferential and there is no adequate evidence for that. He, therefore, submits that the show cause notice issued on 22-3-1988 for the period March, 1986 to February, 1987 is wholly barred by time having been issued beyond the normal limit of six months when the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... herefore, agree with the learned Advocate for the Appellants that the fabric under consideration before us is covered by exception in Para (3) of Note 2(a) of Chapter 59; thereby classification under Tariff Heading 59.03 is ruled out and the classification will be under Chapter 39 as suggested in the said Exception (3) to Note 2(a). 5. Even on limitation, we are agree with the submissions made by the learned Advocate. The colluding officers of the Revenue have not been made parties in the present case. If they had colluded in evasion of Revenue, there is no reason as to why they should not have been proceeded against for imposition of penalty in the proceedings before the Collector in terms of Rule 209A. We also find that the finding of c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
