Piramal Spinning and Weaving Vs. Commr. of C. Ex. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. the question for consideration in this appeal is classification of the printing screens made of silk manufactured by the appellant.2. the appellant is absent and unrepresented despite notice. we have read the memorandum of appeal and other papers and heard the departmental representative.3. in his order the collector has held that the printing screens which are made of silk classifiable under sub-heading 5909.00 of the tariff which covers all other textile products and all articles of a kind suitable for industrial use. he has further held that the goods were entitled to exemption under notification 201/87 only from 25-7-1991 when the notification was amended to include these goods. he has overruled the finding of the assistant collector that the goods were not entitled to the benefit of the notification.4. the challenge to this order is on various grounds. the first ground is that the collector (appeals) could not rely on the provisions of explanatory notes to the harmonised system of nomenclature for the reason that the entire tariff was not fully aligned with the nomenclature is not acceptable. there is no contention that the tariff headings in question 59.10 and 84.42 and the nomenclature were not identically worded or the explanatory notes could not apply and this ground cannot be accepted. the second ground, that the screens are made out of cloth on which duty has been paid which itself mounted on a frame and therefore would not bring out a new product is also not acceptable. it appears by mounting on a frame what emerges is the printing frame which is used for the purpose of printing patters of colours of fabric. a new and different product with a distinctive nomenclature and use has thus emerged. the fact that the printing frame is used in conjunction with the printing machine does not itself make it a component of that machine. there is insufficient material to accept this contention.

Judgment:
1. The question for consideration in this appeal is classification of the printing screens made of silk manufactured by the appellant.

2. The appellant is absent and unrepresented despite notice. We have read the memorandum of appeal and other papers and heard the departmental representative.

3. In his order the Collector has held that the printing screens which are made of silk classifiable under sub-heading 5909.00 of the tariff which covers all other textile products and all articles of a kind suitable for industrial use. He has further held that the goods were entitled to exemption under notification 201/87 only from 25-7-1991 when the notification was amended to include these goods. He has overruled the finding of the Assistant Collector that the goods were not entitled to the benefit of the notification.

4. The challenge to this order is on various grounds. The first ground is that the Collector (Appeals) could not rely on the provisions of Explanatory Notes to the Harmonised System of Nomenclature for the reason that the entire tariff was not fully aligned with the Nomenclature is not acceptable. There is no contention that the tariff headings in question 59.10 and 84.42 and the Nomenclature were not identically worded or the Explanatory Notes could not apply and this ground cannot be accepted. The second ground, that the screens are made out of cloth on which duty has been paid which itself mounted on a frame and therefore would not bring out a new product is also not acceptable. It appears by mounting on a frame what emerges is the printing frame which is used for the purpose of printing patters of colours of fabric. A new and different product with a distinctive nomenclature and use has thus emerged. The fact that the printing frame is used in conjunction with the printing machine does not itself make it a component of that machine. There is insufficient material to accept this contention.