9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1850X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant. Shri S. Murugapan, Advocate, for the Respondent. ORDER All the three appeals filed by the Revenue are being disposed by a common order, as the issue involved is identical. 2. After hearing both the sides duly represented by Shri S. Murugapan, Learned Advocate and Shri A. Cletus, ADC (AR) for the Revenue, we find that the respondent imported fabric by declaring the same as 100% cot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dings against the respondents, which culminated into orders, passed by original adjudicating authority confirming the demands. 3. On appeal against the said orders, Commissioner (Appeals) by relying upon the Textiles Committee's report held the goods have to be considered as made of 100% cotton textiles, in which case, the benefit would be admissible to the importer. He also held that SA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... treated as part of the woven fabric under consideration. When it is so, the lower authority had erred in her judgment to consider the impugned goods as other than 100% cotton textiles fabric and denied the benefit." 5. As is seen from above, the Textiles Committee in their report had clearly stated that warp and weft of the fabric is 100% cotton. Coating the same with polymer based fusible m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... c in the lower authorities assessment imposing SAD while the Notification No. 20/2006 [Sl. No.50] specifically exempts goods of any chapter where the duty under the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 is 'nil'. This 'nil' duty on SIA is derived from The Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957. It is also apparently evident ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
