9911796707
TMI Blog1979 (7) TMI 108X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 972 that the impugned goods would be liable to duty as fabrics-cotton felts being liable to duty as cotton fabrics under Tariff Item 19 and woollen felts being liable to duty as woollen fabrics under Tariff Item 21. When the petitioners preferred an appeal against this order and several other succeeding orders of the Asstt. Collector rejecting their claims for refund pertaining to different periods, on the same issue the Appellate Collector disposed of the batch of appeals vide his Orders-in-Appeal No. 178-198/75, dated 1-5-1975. In this order the Appellate Collector held after considering in detail the submissions of the petitioners that the order of the Assistant Collector in classifying the impugned goods as fabrics was correct relying o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in his decisions and had correctly followed the Supreme Court judgment which was applicable to the petitioners case. He stated that according to the Supreme Court judgment 'Woollen fabric' must not only be woven material but must also be a woollen garment or woven material used as covering or for similar other purposes. The same reasoning it was contended would mutatis mutandis apply to cotton fabrics. lt was also stressed that while interpreting the scope of an item in a taxing schedule, recourse should not be taken to the scientific or technical meaning of the term but the term should be interpreted in a sense in which it is understood in common parlance by persons in trade. 4. Government of India have carefully considered the submissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ff. In fact in the same judgment the Court held that it is a well-known rule of construction that in construing a word in an Act, caution is necessary in adopting the meaning prescribed to the word in other Acts. Therefore, Government are of the view that both the judgments are not applicable in the present case and the Appellate Collector erred in not distinguishing issue involved in the present case from the ratio of the aforesaid two judgments. 5. The only question now remains is as to whether the impugned goods can be classified as fabrics or not. Tariff Item 19 of the Central Excise Tariff reads as under:- "cotton fabrics means all varieties of fabrics manufactured either wholly or partly from cotton... ". Likewise Tariff Item 21 r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore the Government a plea was made by the petitioners that the Department had at no stage contested the several affidavits produced by them from persons in trade. Government are unable to accept this contention. In fact the Assistant Collector has dealt with in detail these affidavits. He has rightly rejected those affidavits as not helping the petitioners case. These affidavits merely stated that the impugned goods are not garments, cloth for wearing, furnishing products etc. It was never the case of the Department that the impugned goods conformed to the description of garments etc., and were fabrics in that sense. Admittedly the impugned goods are of a special kind finding a specialised use. But that by itself would not take away the ch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
