LexTHE COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BARODA versus M/S. THE GAEKWAR MILLS LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A THE COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BARODA v. MIS. THE GAEKWAR MILLS LTD. OCTOBER 11, 1996 B [S.P. BHARUCHA AND SUHAS C. SEN, JJ.] Central Excise Tariff, Item 19 and 22-Whether fabric containing 33% polyester, 32% viscose and 35% cotton is classifiable under Item 19 or Item 22-Fact that fabric not known in the market as cotton but as man-made C fabric not disputed by the Revenue-Held, fabric classifiable as man-made fabric; cotton not shown to be predominant fibre percentage wise or weight- wise. The respondent manufactured a variety of fabric which contained D 33% polyester, 32% viscose and 35% cotton. The case of the Revenue was that the product was cotton fabric classifiable under Item 22 of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule. However, the CEGAT took the view that it was man-made fabric and fell under Item No. 19 of the Tariff Schedule. The Revenue appealed to this Court. E Dismissing the appeal, this Court HELD : 1.1. The fact that the fabric was not known in the market place as cotton fabric bqt 11s m11n-made fabric was not disputed by the Revenue. An excise entry has to be understood in the sense in which it is F understood in the marke.t_place unless there was a special definition to the contrary. There is no such definition or rule which laid down that even if a fabric was comprised of only 35% cotton, it would have to-be treated as < cotton fabric. [476-D] Collector of Central Excise v. Rajasthan Spg. & Wvg. Mills Ltd., [1993] G Supp. 1 sec 420, referred to. 1.2. Either percentage-wise or weight-wise, cotton has not been found to be the predominant fibre as a matter of fact. There is no law that, in such a situation, cotton must be deemed to be the predominant fibre and H the fabric must be treated as cotton fabric. [477-C] 472 .. COLLECTOROFC.E.v.GAEKWARMILLSLTD.[SEN,J.) 473 . CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1601 of A 1985. From the Judgment and Order dated 17.9.83 of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) New Delhi in Order No. 602/83-D in A. No. E.D. (SB) No. 882 of 1983-D. N.K. Bajpai and C.V.S. Rao for the Appellant. Ms. Amrita Mitra for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by B c SEN, J. This is an appeal by the Collector of Central Excise against an order passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT). The controversy in this case is about the classification of a particular variety of fabric known as Sort No. 89225 manufactured by the Gaekwar Mills Limited, the respondent herein. There is no dispute D regarding the composition of this fabric which contains 33% polyester, 32% viscose and 35% cotton. Polyester is a non-cellulosic man-made fibre, while viscose is a cellulosic man-made fibre. The case of the Collector of Central Excise is that the fabric falls under Item 19 of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule, whereas the CEGAT has taken the view that it falls under Item E No. 22 of the Tariff Schedule. Relevant extracts from the aforesaid Tariff Items are given below: "Item No. 19. Cotton Fabrics. F "Cotton Fabrics" means all varieties of fabrics manufactured either wholly or partly from cotton and includes dhoties, sarees, Chad- ders, bedsheets, counterpanes, tableclothes, embroidery in the piece, in strips or in motifs and fabrics impregnated, coated or laminated with preparations of cellulose derivatives or of other G artificial plastic materials, if (i) in such fabrics cotton predominates in weight, or (ii) such fabrics contain more than 40. per cent by weight of cotton and 50 per cent or more by weight of non-cel- lulosic fibres or yarn or both: H 474 A B c D E F G H SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. Explanation II : Where two or more of the following fibres, that is to say, (a) man-made fibre of cellulosic origin (b) cotton (c) wool ( d) silk (including silk noil) ( e) jute (including Bimilipatnam jute or mesta fibre) (t) man-made fibre of non-cellulosic origin (g) flax (h) ramie in any fabric are equal in weight, then such one of those fibres the predominance of which would render such fabric fall under that Item (hereafter in this Explanation referred to as the applicable item) among the Item Nos. 19, 20, 21, 22, 22A and 22AA, which read with the relevant notification, if any, for the time being in force issued under the Central Excise Rules, 1944, involves the highest amount of duty, shall be deemed to be predominant in such
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.