9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (5) TMI 76X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7. The entries at sub-serial No. 2502 of the Drawback Schedule read as follows :- "2502; THREAD, TWINE, CORD AND ROPE MADE OF SPUN YARN IN WHICH MAN MADE FIBRE OR COTTON PREDOMINATE IN WEIGHT, WHETHER CONTAINING SILK AND WOOL OR NOT" 3. The original authority rejected the aforesaid claims as the SEWING THREAD exported were entirely made of 'cotton' while sub-serial No. 2502 covered 'thread' in which man-made fibre or cotton pre-dominated in weight 'On appeal the Appellate authority took a contrary view and set aside the Original order stating that when the drawback benefits are extended to thread where cotton is pre-dominant in weight goods with 100% cotton fibres are also eligible. 4. The respondents in their reply to show cause not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r dropping the proceedings. 6. Government have considered the argument advanced by the respondents. There is no doubt that the concept of predominance of weight has been used in the Tariff for the purposes of classification. But that does not imply that predominance of one type of fibre can mean complete absence of another. As a matter of fact predominance, by its definition, should mean domination over some other variety. There cannot be predominance in isolation to the complete exclusion of other things because there will then be nothing to dominate. Party's plea that there can be a ratio of cent per cent: nil is also illogical as that would mean an infinite ratio which is an abstraction. Government also does not appreciate how definiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers in original are restored. 9. There are two more revision applications registered under F. No. 373/4/DBK/90-Cus. II and F. No. 373/33/DBK/90-Cus. II against Order-in-Appeal No. M-Cus.-2176 to 2180/89 dt. 30-8-1989 and M-Cus-3216/89 dt. 24-10-1989 by M/s. Madura Coats Ltd., Bangalore and passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Madras wherein the Appellate authority had rejected the applicants appeals and upheld the orders of the Original authority of rejecting the applicants claims of drawback under sub-serial No. 2502(A) of the relevant Drawback Schedule in respect of export of cotton sewing thread. Since the facts of these revision applications are common with the review proposal above, the same are also ordered to be disposed o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
