9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (8) TMI 70X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ise duty under the Tariff Item No. 19 in the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (Act No. 1 of 1944) (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') or under Tariff Item No. 22 thereof as they stood during the relevant time. The material part of Item No. 19 in the First Schedule to the Act read as follows :- "19. Cotton Fabrics. - "Cotton Fabrics" means all varieties of fabrics manufactured either wholly or partly from cotton and includes dhoties, sarees, chadders, bed-sheets, bed-spreads, counter-panes, table-cloths but do not include any such fabric............... (c) if it contains 60 per cent or more by weight of rayon or Artificial Silk..." The material part of Item No. 22 in the First Schedule to the Act read as follows ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... han 60 per cent. The respondent repudiated the claim made by the Superintendent, Central Excise, Ahmedabad by its reply dated November 25, 1967. On December 11, 1967 the Superintendent, Central Excise, Ahmedabad, formally issued a Show Cause Notice to the respondent to show cause why the "Calikut Special" variety of goods referred to above should not be subjected to excise duty under Item No. 19. The respondent sent its reply on December 12, 1967 reiterating its stand that since at the final stage the product consisted of less than 40 per cent of cotton and of more than 60 per cent of Artificial Silk, the goods in question were liable to be taxed only under Item No. 22. After taking into consideration the explanation given by the respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Silk and that only at the intermediate stage of its production it contained less than 60 per cent of Rayon or Artificial Silk. The question for consideration in this case is whether merely because the goods in question contained less than 60 per cent of Rayon or Artificial Silk at the intermediate stage they were liable to be taxed under Item No. 19 which imposed a heavier duty than the duty payable under Item No. 22. 3. Shri Govind Dass, learned counsel for the Union of India, in support of its contention relied upon the decision of the High Court of Gujarat in Vijay Textiles, a Partnership Firm at Plot No. 4, Nerol Abendaly v. Union of India - 1979 (4) E.L.T. (J 181). The petitioner in that case claimed before the High Court that the goo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
