LAWS(CE)-2005-2-225

SUNINT AUTO PVT. LTD. Vs. CC

Decided On February 17, 2005
Sunint Auto Pvt. Ltd. Appellant
V/S
Cc Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE issue involve in this appeal filed by M/s. Sunint Auto Pvt. Ltd. is whether 100% Polyester Curtain Fabric imported by them is classifiable under heading No. 60.02 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act as claimed by them or under Heading 58.04 of the Tariff as confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under the impugned Order.

(2.) WE heard Shri Piyush Kumar, learned Advocate, and Shri H.C. Verma, learned D.R. The rival Tariff Headings read as under :

(3.) WE have considered the submissions of both the sides. The Textile Committee had clearly given its opinion that the fabric in question is warp knitted fabrics. The Revenue has not brought on record any other opinion of any expert in this filed to counter the opinion expressed by the Textile Committee. The Revenue has placed reliance on the personal observations of the Adjudicating Authority over the expert opinion given by the Textile Committee. Heading 58.04 applies to Tulls & Other net fabrics, not including woven, knitted or crocheted fabrics. Once the knitted fabric is excluded from the ambit of Heading 58.04, the impugned goods being knitted, as opined by the Textile Committee, cannot fall under the Heading 58.04. The decision relied upon by the learned DR are not applicable to the facts of the present matter. In the case of Vetergard Frandsen (I) Ltd. The Tribunal has classified the product netting fabrics under Heading 58.04 as the foreign supplier had described the goods only as netting fabrics. Thus in the said decision there was no material to establish that the imported material was knitted fabric whereas in the present matter Textile Committee, in its opinion, characterized the fabric as knitted fabrics. In the case of Mehta Nettings (P) Ltd. the issue relates to the classification of the Round Mesh Mosquito netting fabrics and the dispute was between Tariff Heading 58.04 and 52.06. there was no dispute as to whether the fabric was knitted. We, therefore, set aside the impugned Order and allow the appeal.