Order

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.

4. The Tribunal took note of the fact that the Collector had the article chemically analysed. The Chemical analyst’s report showed that the material was impregnated by waterproofing material. Subsequently a retest was done by the Chief Chemist of the Central Revenues Control Laboratory, Government of India which showed that the three samples were not wholly impregnated and on the other hand the wrap and weft of the cloth could be seen by the naked eye. The Tribunal, therefore, came to the conclusion that this situation was covered by Chapter Note 5(a) and therefore, taken out of the purview of Tariff Heading 59.06. The finding being one of fact, we do not see any reason to interfere with the conclusion of the Tribunal. The appeals are, accordingly, dis­missed but without any order as to costs.

C.A. Nos. 280-292/2002 :

5. Having regard to the facts of the case, we see no reason to inter­fere with the decision of the Tribunal. The civil appeals are accord­ingly dismissed but without any order as to costs.

Appeal dismissed.

***************