9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (10) TMI 235X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... other artificial plastic materials. After considering the reply given by the appellants, the Assistant Collector in his order under reference observed that the spider cloth was obtained at an intermediate stage and was not marketable nor marketed and therefore was not excisable. He accordingly ruled out the classification of the fabric under either Item 19 or Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule, and vacated the show cause notices issued in this regard. 2. Thereafter the Collector of Central Excise initiated proceedings under Section 35A(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, as it then stood, against the Assistant Collector s order. He observed that Central Excise duty was levied on manufacture and since the goods were manufactured duty was legally leviable and that the question of the goods being actually marketed was not relevant. He held that this spider cloth manufactured by impregnating cotton fabric with artificial plastic material was clearly excisable under Tariff Item 19-III of the Central Excise Tariff. It is against this order that the appellants have come up to the Tribunal. 3. The appeal originally came up for hearing on 8-9-1983 before a Bench wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or arriving at a decision on the classification of the spider cloth, we directed Shri Tayal to make copies available to the Bench as well as to the appellants, which he duly did. Although the test report did not in terms state that it was on the samples drawn on 3-11-1982, the contents of the report indicated that it was in fact with reference to those samples, and Shri Kohli, for the appellants, accepted that it could be considered as with reference to those samples. Further, in the light of the contents of the test report, Shri Kohli did not press for admission of the two test reports furnished by Messrs Italab Private Ltd. 8. The question before us is whether the spider cloth is classifiable as a cotton fabric impregnated with artificial plastic materials, within the scope of Item 19-III CET. It may be stated that the samples shown to us were in the nature of light brown coloured fabric, with a stiffness approaching that of thick paper. It would be relevant in this connection to set out the process by which this spider cloth is produced, as given by the Assistant Collector in paragraph 8 of his order :- The issue relates to the classification of Cotton Fabrics subjected t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Dictionary of Textiles . This definition is extracted below :- IMPREGNATED FABRIC : (According to A.S.T.M.) A fabric in which the interstices between the yarn are completely filled with an impregnating compound throughout the thickness of the material, as distinguished from sized or coated materials where the material is applied to the surface and these interstices are not completely filled. Shri Kohli pointed out that the report of the Customs laboratory itself made it clear that none of the samples conformed to the above definition. In each case it has been stated, with reference to appearance and characteristics that interstices between the yarns are open . Again, in respect of cone test for waterproofness , it has been stated in each case water passes freely , Shri Kohli urged that in the light of these findings the spider cloth could clearly not be termed as impregnated fabric . 10. Shri Kohli also referred us to circular letter No. CF/1/80-CX. 2, dated 19-4-1980, as reproduced at page 487 of Central Excise Tariff of India, 1983-84 by R.K. Jain. In this letter, which deals with interlining cloth , it has inter alia been stated as follows :- The fabric ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... riod at least there was evidently no deterioration. Even thereafter it had not been shown that there was any perceptible deterioration. The argument that the product had a short shelf life and could not be marketed was therefore, according to him, not correct. 15. Shri Tayal also pointed out that in order to be excisable it was not necessary that the product should actually be marketed. It was, however, pointed out to him that the Supreme Court had held that the goods should be marketable , in the sense that they could come to the market to be bought and sold. The Assistant Collector had held that the product was neither marketable nor marketed. 16. On the question of classification, Shri Tayal submitted that there was authority of the Supreme Court to say that one should go by the ordinary meaning of an expression and not by definitions in dictionaries. He accordingly submitted that the term impregnated should not be interpreted in the light of the definition in Fairchild s Dictionary of Textiles but in accordance with the ordinary understanding. In the present case, the cotton fabric was soaked in a solution of plastic and came out covered with plastic material. Accordin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny definition of impregnated fabrics . If the I.S.I. has published any definition in this regard, it has not been cited before us : but we have no reason to think that any definition adopted by the I.S.I. would be markedly different from that adopted by an authority of the standing of the A.S.T.M. We have therefore to take it that the definition as relied upon by the appellants is applicable for interpreting Item 19-III. In the light of this definition and the test report of the Customs laboratory, the spider cloth, which is found to have open interstices between the yarns and through which water passes freely, obviously cannot be considered as impregnated fabric . 21. Shri Tayal had faintly argued that if the spider cloth was not impregnated fabric it can be considered as coated fabric . In reply, the appellants submitted that the common understanding of a coated fabric was of one which was covered with plastic material on one side while the other side remained untreated. In contrast, the spider cloth was covered with plastic material on both sides. In the absence of any specific authority we are unable to say how far this submission is correct. We, however, observe that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
