TMI Blog2000 (9) TMI 840X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncessional rate of duty in respect of the said products under Notification No. 25/95-C.E., dated 16-3-1995 and No. 26/94-C.E., dated 1-3-1994. 2. The benefit of Notification No. 25/95-C.E. has been denied to the cotton yarn on the ground that the term cotton yarn used in the said notification cannot cover blended cotton yarn in which cotton predominates by weight. As such the adjudicating authority has held that blended cotton, would attract tariff rate of duty and not the concessional rate of duty. On the other hand the appellants contention is that the cotton yarn in question contains 85% of cotton and as per Note 2(a) to Section XI goods classifiable under Chapters 50-53 and a mixture of two or more textile materials are to be class ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... treated as flax fabrics because of the predominance of flax and in terms of said Section Note of Section XI. In fact submits the ld. adv. Shri S.K. Roychowdhury that there is no dispute about the classification of the products in question. In the absence of any such dispute the benefit of the notification has to be extended to the appellants inasmuch as the notification in question does not contain any separate definition of cotton fabrics or flax fabrics. It has also been argued before us that a similar dispute was dealt in by the Tribunal vide its [1999 (107) E.L.T. 273 (T)] = Order No. A-885/CAL/98, dated 5-3-1998, while considering the benefit of Notification No. 57/85, which is identically worded to the notifications involved in the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1995 (77) E.L.T. 474 (S.C.) was justified. The Hon ble Supreme Court has held that the exemption granted by Notification No. 332/77 to one type of non-cellulosic yarn falling under tariff item 18E would be limited to polypropylene spun yarn only and polypropylene fibres blended with other types of fibres will not qualify for the exemption. As such he submits that the issue having been decided in principle by the Hon ble Supreme Court, the ratio of the same would be applicable while interpreting the present notifications. In this view of the matter Shri N.C. Roychowdhury prays for rejecting the appeal. 7. We have considered the submissions made from both the sides. There is no dispute about the fact that the cotton yarn and cotton fabrics ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e case of the same appellant M/s. Indian Rayon by holding that the benefit of Notification No. 57/87-C.E. would be available to blended cotton fabrics containing 52% cotton because by virtue of Section Note 2A of Section XI of CETA, 1985, such fabrics is to be treated as cotton fabrics by virtue of predominance of cotton in the product. The dispute involved in the above appeal and in the present appeal is identical. As such we hold that the denial of benefit of the notification in question is not justified. Accordingly we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants. 8. As the appeal has been allowed on merits, we are not considering the appellants plea of demand being barred by limitation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
