TMI Blog2020 (6) TMI 705X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be said that the cloth is partially coated with plastics and that the dotted design resulted from the treatment leading to such coating. The claim of the appellant s advocate does not hold good and the exclusion clause (4) of chapter note 2(a) of Chapter 59, which is essential for being excluded from Chapter 59, is not applicable to fusible interlining cloth manufactured by the appellant - thus, it is clear that the subject product merits classification under sub-heading 5903 of the Tariff. Appeal dismissed. - Case No. 15/WBAAAR/Appeal/2019 - - - Dated:- 19-3-2020 - SHRI A.P. SURI, AND SHRI DEVI PRASAD KARANAM, MEMBER Present for the Appellant: Shri Saurabh Bagaria, Advocate Shri Indranil Banerjee, Advocate Present for the Respondent: Shri Sushanta Saha, Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Bankura Charge, Bankura. 1. This Appeal has been filed by M/s. Sadguru Seva Paridhan Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as SSPPL) on 20.12.2019 against Advance Ruling No. 33/WBAAR/2019-20 dated 11/11/2019 = 2019 (11) TMI 768 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, WEST BENGAL , pronounced by the West Bengal Authority for Advance Ruling (hereinafter referred to as the WBAAR). ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... partially coated with plastic was to be treated as an exception and would continue to be classified under Heading 5903. (iv) The difference arises from the application of the provisions of the Explanatory Notes to the HSN Code. In the said Explanatory Notes to Chapter 59, textile fabrics which were spattered by spraying with visible particles of thermoplastic material and were capable of providing a bond to other fabrics or materials on the application of heat and pressure were classifiable under Heading 5903. According to CBEC Circular No. 433/66/98-CX-6 dated 27/11/1998, such classification should be treated as an exception to Chapter Note 2 (a)(4) to Chapter 59. (v) While striking down the above mentioned Circular No. 433/66/98-CX-6 dated 27/11/1998 as ultra vires and contrary to Section 37B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the Ld. Single Bench of Madras High Court in the case of Madura coats reported in 2004 (163) ELT 164 (Mad.) = 2003 (9) TMI 98 - MADRAS HIGH COURT , took no notice of the applicability of the Explanatory Notes to the HSN Code in deciding a classification issue under the Excise Tariff. Although not stated explicitly, the court held the interpreta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R on the following grounds : a) The WBAAR grossly has ignored the test report submitted, which establishes that the goods in question bear clotted pattern and are partially coated with polythene and, therefore, the said goods fall outside the ambit of Chapter 59 of the Tariff Act in view of exclusion No. 4 to Chapter Note 2(a) of the said Chapter. Therefore, Chapter 59 was not applicable to the said goods. b) The WBAAR ignored the judgment in the case of Goodswear Fashion Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2019 (23) GSTL 154 (AAR-GST) = 2019 (3) TMI 836 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS, UTTARAKHAND where in similar facts and circumstances, the WBAAR of Uttarakhand held that such fabrics would fall under Chapter 52 or 55, 58 or 60 of the Tariff Act and not Heading 5903. c) The WBAAR misread Circular No. 24/Coated Fabric/88-CX.1 dated 02.09.1988, wherein at paragraphs 8 and 9, it has been stated unambiguously that fabrics partially coated or partially covered with plastic and bearing designs were excluded from purview of Heading 59.03, according to Chapter Note 2(a)(1) of Chapter 59 of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff. d) CBEC s Circular No. 5/89 clearly recognized that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e in the instant case as the judgement dealt with polyester viscose which is quite different from the goods manufactured by the Appellant. 7. The matter is examined and submissions made before us are considered. 8. The product manufactured by the appellant is fusible interlining cloth. Before 1989, the item used to be classified under Chapters 52 to 55, as clarified under Circular No. 5/89 dated 15/06/1989. In the Union Budget of 1989-90, a new chapter note 2(c) was introduced in Chapter 59 of the Tariff, which led to inclusion of textile fabrics, partially or discretely coated with plastic by dot printing process under heading 5903. Subsequently, in the Union Budget of 1995, the said chapter note 2(c) was omitted with effect from 16/03/1995. It is the claim of the appellant that after removal of the said chapter note, the item cannot be classified under Heading 5903. In their support, the appellant has submitted a few decisions of High Court and a decision of AAR, Uttarakhand. 9. The sample copies of invoices issued by the appellant indicate that it is classifying the product under sub-heading 5208. The product description under Sub-heading 5208 is as follows : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... astics, whatever the weight per square metre and whatever the nature of the plastic material (compact or cellular), barring a few exceptions are to be classified under sub-heading, 5903. It is clear from the sample produced by the appellant as well as the dot printing process that the product namely fusible interlining cloth qualifies the tests to be classified under sub-heading 5903 of the Tariff. It is seen from the sample of the. Fusible interlining cloth that the coating of polyethyIene can be seen with naked eye. can be bent manually around a cylinder and is not completely coated with plastics. The representative of the appellant strongly pleaded that their product is partially coated with plastic and bears design. However, on examination of the sample, it is seen that the pattern of dots that from on the surface of the product is due to the very process of dot printing and the same is visible on the entire surface of the cloth. Thus; it cannot be said that the cloth is partially coated with plastics and that the dotted design resulted from the treatment leading to such coating. Therefore, the claim of the appellant s advocate does not hold good and the exclusion clause (4) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
