SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2005 Supreme(SC) 322

RUMA PAL, ARIJIT PASAYAT, C.K.THAKKER
Commissioner Of Central Excise, Bangalore – Appellant
Versus
Ducksole (I) LTD. – Respondent


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 Chapte







Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top