9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 738X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ttee and the report of ATIRA. The impugned order blindly follows the report of ATIRA without going into the definition of the term Upholstery fabric as given in Notification No. 14/2006-Cus. The definition given in the said Notification is restrictive definition and covers only certain uses of the fabric. In the instance case, while the textile committee has opined that the nature of fabric will depend on usage as it could have multiple uses. The report of ATIRA is absolute. However, without giving any reason as to why it has arrived at that finding. There are no merit in the impugned order blindly relying on the report of ATIRA, especially in presence of an alternate report of an equally competent body namely textile committee which cle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t was notice that Notification No. 14/2006-Cus dated 01.03.2006 prescribed BCD on other than Upholstery fabric at the rate of 10% only whereas Upholstery fabric attracted BCD at the rate of 10% or Rs.150 per Kg whichever is higher. To clarify this aspect, that is if the goods were in the nature of Upholstery polyester woven fabric or other than Upholstery polyester woven fabric, a letter was written to Textile Committee again. The Textile Committee informed that it is not possible to ascertain this specific application of the sample as the textile product may have usages depending upon the user . Since, Textile Committee failed to give clarification on this aspect another sample was drawn and was sent to Ahmedabad Textile Industries Resear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... search. Learned Counsel pointed out that simply because ATIRA is a recognized institution, its view do not become Sacrosanct. He pointed out that the textile committee had given clear observation that the nature of views of fabric cannot be determined, as the goods could have various market applications and multiple uses depending on the users. 2.4 Learned Counsel pointed out that when there are two possible interpretations that the interpretations that benefits the importer needs to be followed as held by Hon ble High Court of Kolkata in the case of Sesa International Ltd 2016 (342) ELT 481 (Cal). 2.5 Learned counsel further pointed out that exemption under Notification 14/2006-Cus depends on the nature of the goods. He pointed out t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommittee, clearly observe as follow:- It is not possible to ascertain the specific application of the sample as the Textiles product may have multiple uses depending upon the user 4.3 The entire dispute before us is if the product is entitled to benefit of Notification 14/2006-CUS as Upholstery fabric or as other than Upholstery fabric. The Notification defines Upholstery fabric to mean material used on furniture or used to cover walls, as curtains or wall hangings and used fabric coverings and treatments in Automobiles, Airplanes, Rail-Road passenger Cars. 4.4 We find that there is contradiction between the report of Textile committee and the report of ATIRA. The impugned order blindly follows the report of ATIRA without going i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
