9911796707
TMI Blog1977 (12) TMI 29X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he petitioner, manufactures cotton fabrics known as 'Do-Suti' and 'Dedh-Suti'. The Excise Authorities took samples of the four varieties of these fabrics manufactured by the petitioner, which were termed as Q-22, Q-204, C.T.-1304 and C.T-6622, and sent them for chemical examination. On 8th April, 1970, the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, informed the petitioner Company that samples Q-22 and Q-204 have been found to be less than 8 ounces per square yard and hence they are liable to be assessed to excise duties under Item No 19-I (2). But in regard to samples C.T. 1304 and C.T 6622 it was stated that since their weights have been found to be more than 8 ounces per square yard, they are liable to be assessed to excise duties under Item No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... points, namely :- (i) Classification for purposes of levy of excise duty at 8 ounces per square yard, was arbitrary and illegal. (ii) The report of the Chemical Examiner, which shows that the two C.T. samples were less than 8 ounces per square yard, was rejected illegally. (iii) On overall consideration the articles manufactured by the petitioner Company were not 'Duck'. 7. In order to appreciate the first point, it may be stated that the Schedule to the Excise Act does not define or clarify the significance of the terms 'Duck', 'Canvas', 'Do-Suti' and 'Dedh-Suti'. The Central Board of Excise and Customs by Circular dated 6th June, 1969, clarified all these four terms. 8. The term 'Canvas' is defined as below :- "The fabrics must ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he loom state weight of the fabrics, i.e. after deducting the weight of sizing, if any. 12. All the pending assessment of 'Canvas' and 'Duck' may be reviewed in the light of the above mentioned definitions. 13. There is no dispute that constructionally the fabrics manufactured by the petitioner Company conforms to the criteria laid down in the Circular and in that respect is was identical with that of 'Duck'. Here the classification was fixed at 8 ounces weight per square yard. 14. The learned Counsel says that this was wholly arbitrary and hence illegal. In paragraph 31 of the counter-affidavit it has been stated that the term 'Duck' has been defined in Complete Encyclopedia compiled by Sri V.R. Bareve, Textile Consultant, as follows :- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld that the samples sent this time were not the samples from the original sorts bearing the same numbers. The same sample should have been sent for re-testing. But, it appears that some fresh samples were taken out from fresh stock and were sent for examination. This could not be done validly, because the complaint of the Company was that the samples originally sent was not correctly examined. The Appellate Collector was, hence, justified in rejecting this report. The petitioner cannot have any legitimate grievance at this conclusion. 16. It was then urged that in common parlance the fabric manufactured by the petitioner Company are called as 'Do-Suti' and 'Dedh-Suti' and it was not known as 'Duck'. There is hardly any decision on this poi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
