COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Vs. DUCKSOLE I LTD
LAWS(SC)-2005-2-96
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on February 22,2005

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BANGALORE Appellant
VERSUS
DUCKSOLE (I) LTD. Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE BANGALORE VS. OSNAR CHEMICAL PVT LTD [LAWS(SC)-2012-1-18] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)In C. A. Nos. 4167-4169/2000 : The dispute relates to the question whether the article manufactured by the respondent-assessee is classifiable under Tariff Heading 59. 06 which is the contention of the appellant or Tariff heading 52. 06 which is the contention of the respondent-assessee. The two competing entries read as follows :
"52.06 Cotton fabrics (excluding fabrics covered under Heading Nos. 52. 09, 52.10 and 52.11,- (a) woven on looms other handlooms, and (b) subjected to the process of bleaching, mercerising, dyeing, printing, water proofing, shrink- proofing, organdie processing or any other process or any two or more of these processes with the aid of power or steam. "

"59.06 Textile fabrics, otherwise impregnated coated or covered (including fabrics covered partially or fully with textile flocks or with preparations containing textile flocks) - Fabrics covered partially or fully with textile flocks or with preparation containing textile flocks;"chapter Note-5 which was earlier numbered as 4 in Chapter 59 reads as follows :

"(5) Heading No. 59. 06 does not apply to- (a) Fabrics in which he impregnation, coating or covering cannot be seen with the naked eye (usually Chapters 50 to 55, 58 or 60) ; for the purpose of this provision, no account should be taken of by resulting change of colour;"

(2.)The manufacturing process was not in dispute. The cotton cloth was purchased by the respondent-assessee and thereafter the cloth was dipped in a mixture of wax, china clay and yellow chlorine, etc. It was then passed through rollers operated manually and squeezed to the required thickness after which it was dried and thereafter cut to the required sizes with the help of manually operated machines.
(3.)The Tribunal found as a fact that the fabric could not be said to be impregnated by relying upon the definition of the word "impregnated" in the Handbook on Glossary of Textile terms. It also relied upon the Circular issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs dated 11.4.1991 to the effect that for the purposes of Tariff Heading 59. 06 the manufacturing process and waterproofing must be such that there must be a visible layer on the surface of the fabric.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.