2001 (6) TMI 99

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nue have the same issue and arise out of the common Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). These are being disposed of together vide this common order. 2.The respondents are not present in spite of notice but have filed cross-objection. 3.The issue is of interpretation of Notification No. 6/88-C.E., dated 19-1-1988. Vide this notification fents and rags of man-made fabrics falli .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... his order, the Revenue filed a review application. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the logic of the Asstt. Collector but directed re-calculation in view of certain doubts. The present appeals agitate this finding. 5.In the ground of appeal it is once again claimed that the quantity of sound fabrics alone should be taken for counting the 5% rateability of fents and rags. Shri Jain submits that .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ngth thereof as essential criteria for such classification. Therefore, for interpreting the phrase "clearance of man-made fabrics falling under .........." there is no scope of exclusion of any variety of fabrics such as fents or rags therefrom. In other words, in computing the basis of 5% concessional rate of clearances, the sum total of clearances of the fabrics including those of fents and rags .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X