TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 325X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xcluded from heading 5907. From the combined reading of Tariff entry and chapter note 5(c)., it is found that flock print on the fabric which resulted into design, the said flock printed fabric is excluded from heading 5907 and if the fabric is though printed with flock but it does not result into design, the said fabric will be classifiable under 5907 - In this fact of the present case there is no dispute that flock printing was done for the purpose of design, therefore we are of the clear view that flock printed fabric with design is not classifiable under 5907. After rejection of the proposal of the department regarding classification of subject goods under 5907, correct classification under 52,54,55 must be arrived at. This aspect h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sel for the appellant submits that appellant is engaged in the Flock printing of fabric. They do flock printing for designing of the fabric. He submits that the flock printing for design is not covered under Chapter heading 5907 as per Chapter note 5(c) of Chapter 59, That the Adjudicating authority held that product is correctly not classifiable under 5907.12 therefore clause (c) of Chapter note (5) of Chapter 59 will be applicable. Accordingly the fabric partly covered with flock for design purpose is clearly excluded from heading 5907 therefore demand raised considering classification under 5907 is not sustainable. In this regard he placed reliance on the decision of Warner Hindustan Ltd Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad[1999(11 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me bar. In support of his submission, he placed reliance on the following judgments: (a) Nizam Sugar Factory Vs. Collector of Central Excise, AP[2006(197) ELT 465(SC)] (b) Modipon Fibre Company Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. Meerut[2007(218) ELT 8 (SC)] (c) AsHIWINI vaNASPATI Industries Pvt Ltd Vs. Collector of C. Ex. [1991(56) ELT 214(Tri.)] (d) Kapoor Lamp Shade Co. V. Commissioner of C. Ex. Delhi-IV[2015(319) ELT 170 (Tri. Del)]. He submits that the dispute relates to the classification of goods in such nature of case suppression cannot be alleged as held by Hon ble Supreme Court in case of Densons Pultretaknik Vs. commissioner of Central Exicse[2003(155) 211 (SC)]. 3. On the other hand, Shri. V.K. Agarw ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i)] As regard the limitation, he submits that letter of M/s. Meghana Creations relied upon by the appellant has no relation with activity of present appellant therefore letter given of M/s. Meghana enterprises will not support the case of the appellant accordingly, appellant have clearly suppressed the fact, hence the extended period was rightly invoked. 4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the record. 5. As regard the issue whether flock printing fabric is classifiable under 5907 or otherwise, it is necessary to ascertain the nature of flock printing. There is no dispute that flock printing done by the appellant on the fabric is in the form of design. The tariff entry and relevant Chapte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... partly covered with flock and bears designs resulting from this treatment is excluded from heading 5907. From the combined reading of Tariff entry and chapter note 5(c)., we find that flock print on the fabric which resulted into design, the said flock printed fabric is excluded from heading 5907 and if the fabric is though printed with flock but it does not result into design, the said fabric will be classifiable under 5907. In this fact of the present case there is no dispute that flock printing was done for the purpose of design, therefore we are of the clear view that flock printed fabric with design is not classifiable under 5907. However the product is otherwise appears to be classifiable under 52, 54, 55 depending upon the compositio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hority. There is also a dispute that if the flock printing is done without aid power then product may not be dutiable, however this also the matter of facts which require a relook. In the above position of the case, we are of the view that now adjudicating authority must decide correct classification under Chpater 52/54/55 and thereafter, aspect of dutiabilty depending on the fact whether the activity of flock printing is carried out with the aid of power and without aid of power has to be ascertained. The issue of limitation is also kept open. As per our above observations, we dispose of the appeal by way of remand to the adjudicating authority for passing a fresh order in the above terms. ( Pronounced in court on 02/11/2017) - - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
