1. The common question for consideration in these appeals is the classification of PVC leather cloth manufactured by the appellant, known as rexine.
2. The Collector (Appeals) has held the goods to be classifiable under Heading 39.21, whereas the appellant under Heading 59.03.
3. On this identical question which came up before this Tribunal, in regard to the same fabric manufactured by the appellant, it had, in its order in appeal E/382-R/98-Bom, held that the goods were rightly classifiable under Heading 59.03. In that order the reasoning of the Collector (Appeals) in support of his conclusion, which is now adopted by the departmental representative, that the plastic is predominant by weight in the material, and that the textile fabric is present only for reinforcement, have already been dealt with. The Tribunal noted that the predominance in weight or volume does not confer essential character on the goods and what is to be seen is the purpose for which the material is used. It referred to the definition of the term "leather cloth" and rexine in the textile dictionary and that the Explanation that this cloth is made to stimulate various kinds of leather, for which plastic coating is essential. The classification claimed by the appellant therefore has to be accepted.