Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2008 (9) TMI 633

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... steners ) are classifiable under sub-heading 5806.10 of Central Excise Tariff as Narrow Woven Fabric other than the goods of heading No.5807 or the same are classifiable as Snap Fasteners under sub-heading 9606.90 of the tariff. The Commissioner vide the impugned order has held that - (a) Hook and Loop Fastener tape is correctly classifiable under sub heading 9606.90 of the tariff as Snap fasteners and not under sub-heading 5806.10 of the tariff as Narrow Woven Fabric . (b) Confirmed the duty demand amounting to Rs. 3,65,999.91 for the period from Jan. 04 to June 04 and duty demand of Rs. 20,93,139/- for the period from July 04 to March 05 within the normal limitation periods and dropped the remaining duty demand as time- .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 005 has clearly held that the classification of the said goods is under 5806.10 and not under heading 9606.90 and this fact cannot be ignored by the Commissioner; that the technical literature supports the case of the appellant, and that the Tribunal s order in the case of Zip Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Chennai-III reported in 2001 (133) E.L.T. 591 wherein it was held that the zipper tapes are classifiable under heading 96.07 of the Tariff as parts of slide fasteners, is not applicable to the facts of this case, as in this case the product hook and loop fastener tapes which is a woven product, is totally different from the zipper tape. It was also pleaded that snap fastener covered under heading 9606 is totally different product which consis .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d through slitting machines where the selvedges are cut and tapes of different sizes are made. 3.1 These tapes are used to hold together two objects/surfaces. The point of dispute is as to whether these goods are narrow woven pile fabrics classifiable under sub-heading 5806.10 or are snap or press fastener classifiable under sub-heading 9606.90 of the tariff. 3.1.1 The competing entries for the goods, in question, are reproduced below : 58.06 Narrow woven fabrics, other than goods of heading 58.07; Narrow fabrics consisting of warp without weft assembled by means of an adhesive (Bolducs). 5806.10 Woven pile fabrics (including terry towelling and similar terry fabrics) and chenille fabrics . .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hearing and in their reply dt. 12-12-05 to the show cause notice that there was no cutting of selvedges and they were only separating the tapes by a slitting machine by cutting in the middle of the selvedges and that selvedges remained on both the sides of the tape, on the ground that this contention, at the stage of hearing is an afterthought and there is no explanation as to how the huge stock of selvedges has been generated. The Commissioner, after ruling out classification under sub-heading 5806.10, has ordered the classification of the goods as press-fastener under 9606.90. 4. Whether or not the goods, in question, have selvedges on both the edges as a point of fact - something which could be easily verified. When the Appellants - .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... section notes. In this case, there is no dispute about the fact that the goods are woven fabrics. The point of dispute is whether or not the goods, in question, conform to the definition of narrow woven fabrics as given in Chapter Note 6 to Chapter 58. The Commissioner while ruling out the classification of the goods, in question, under 58.06 by applying the ratio of Hon ble Supreme Court s judgment in the case of CCE, Chennai-III v. Zip Industries Ltd. (supra), has not given any finding as to whether the width of the fabrics (velcro tape) exceeds 30 cm and his finding that the tape does not have selvedges on both the edges is not based on any test report of CRCL, while the Appellants have claimed that the goods, in question, do have selv .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates