9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 78X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re is the weight of one textile material over another single textile material. This is of no help to the Revenue because, admittedly, what is imported is fabric per se. Circular No. 02/2011 specifically covers fabrics bonded fabrics classifiable depending on the type of textile material and nature of bonding. The textile industry differentiates between textile and fabric; normally a textile refers to an unfinished product which cannot be used specifically while a fabric is used specifically to mean a finished product - Hence, the applicability of Section Note is misplaced and the classification is therefore required to be done as per the interpretative Rules, more specifically, under Rule 3. Rule 3(c) alone is applicable and has r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f polyamide (Nylon); average GSM - 135.3 and the percentage woven fabric -53.7% (Nylon) and knitted fabric - 46.3% (Polyester); that the same was therefore liable to be classifiable under RITC 54074290 i.e., Nylon woven-Polyester knitted Bonded Fabric . Aggrieved by the aforesaid re-classification, the assessee preferred an appeal before the first appellate authority who, after analyzing the examination report, Board Circular No. 02/2011-Cus. dated 04.01.2011 and the interpretative Rules 2 and 3, held that the imported fabrics were liable to be classified only under CTH 6006 3200 as declared by the assessee, that therefore the Order of the lower authorities was liable for rejection and consequently, set aside the same. Aggrieved, the Reven ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e heading which occurs last in the numerical order, which in fact was adopted by the assessing Officer, etc. 3.2 He also relied on the judgement of the Delhi Bench of the CESTAT in the case of Y.S. Enterprises vs. Commissioner of Customs, Delhi-III 2016 (343) E.L.T. 551 (Tri. Del.) and also submitted that the decision of the Delhi Bench was upheld by the Hon ble Supreme Court which is reported in 2017 (345) E.L.T. A68 (S.C.). 4.1 Per contra, Ld. Advocate Shri. B. Satish Sundar appearing for the assessee contended as under : (i) The Order of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal relied on by the Revenue is not applicable as the only fabric there is clearly Polyester bonded fabric; (ii) The Ld. Commissioner had rightly went ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tiates between textile and fabric; normally a textile refers to an unfinished product which cannot be used specifically while a fabric is used specifically to mean a finished product. Viewed in this context, we note that the first appellate authority has rightly applied Clause 2(ii) as per which the classification is to be determined by application of Rule 3 of the General Rules for Interpretation. Per contra, Section Note XI refers to textiles in general, also terming them as goods, even when referring to mixture, etc. Hence, the applicability of Section Note is misplaced and the classification is therefore required to be done as per the interpretative Rules, more specifically, under Rule 3. 8. On a perusal of Rule 3 in the interpreta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
