TMI Blog1988 (11) TMI 345X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to clear the cloth after payment of duty. They filed classification list for the mosquito netting classifying it under the category of cotton fabrics of average count below 41s, under Tariff Item 19(i), and claimed the concessional rate of duty prescribed by the Notification No. 226/77, dated 15-7-1977. While approving this classification list there was a direction to the Supdt. of Central Excise to draw samples of the mosquito netting and to send the same to the Deputy Chief Chemist, Department of Central Excise, Bombay for ascertaining the exact average count of the said cloth. This was done and the Deputy Chief Chemist reported his inability to determine the average count of the same by the statutory formula given under Notification No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mosquito netting. He argued that the formula which was given by Notification. No. 210/79 could not be considered as retrospective and be applied to an earlier period. 5. Dr. Jois, the learned Advocate for the respondents, on the other hand, argued that the average count of the mosquito netting could be calculated even under the Notification No. 226/77 even though the result may not be absolutely accurate. He submitted that there was nothing in the notification to exclude mosquito netting from the benefit thereof. He also referred to certain opinions according to which the average count of mosquito netting could be calculated under the Notification. The learned Advocate relied upon some orders passed by the Tribunal viz.: (i) Order No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8) was in the nature of a clarification which would equally apply to the past cases. After hearing the matter the Tribunal held that the provisions of the Notification No. 7/78 were not really in the nature of an enlargement of the scope of the notification but they merely explained the manner of determination of the average count of the cotton fabrics in which yam of different counts had been used in weft or warp or both. The Tribunal took note that the earlier formula did not cover such a contingency, but that would not mean that such average count was not determinable. Only the manner of determination had not been laid down. The omission, observed the Tribunal, was rectified by Notification No. 7/78. In the view of the Tribunal there was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
