Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu
Bharat Textiles And Proofing Inds. vs Commr. Of C. Ex. on 6 January, 2005
ORDER P.G. Chacko, Member (J)
1. The two ROM applications filed by the appellants in appeals, E/R-781 to 785/-1995, are against Final Order No. 1402/96, dated 3-8-96 passed by this Bench in the said appeals. The Tribunal's order had sustained the Department's claim as to classification of the assessees' products viz. tarpaulins, by holding that the goods were to be classified under Heading 59.06 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and not under Heading 52.07 claimed by the parties. Apart from filing these applications for rectification of what was said to be "error apparent on the face of the record" in the Tribunal's order regarding classification of the goods, the parties preferred appeals to the Supreme Court against the said order. These appeals have since been disposed of by the court as per judgment dated 5-5-2004 reported as Ugam Chand Bhandari v. CCE, Madras 2004 (62) RLT 240 (SC). Their lordships have upheld the classification of the assessees' tarpaulins under Heading 59,06, Para (8) of the judgment in Ugam Chand Bhandari (supra) is relevant and the same reads thus:
8. As stated earlier, finding recorded by the Tribunal as to the nature of the product is after examining relevant material with reference to relevant entries. The denial of cross-examination was due to the lapse of the appellant and cannot take advantage of the same in these proceedings. The Tribunal held that the fabric manufactured by the appellants is impregnated and, therefore, has to be considered as fabric impregnated with materials other than those mentioned under Tariff Headings 59.02 and 59.05. Such impregnation clearly indicated that under the scheme of the Central Excise Tariff the impregnated fabrics with a coating and which is visible to the naked eye on the material on record being one of the finding of fact, we cannot interfere with it. Hence, all the contentions of the appellants stand rejected.
In view of the classification of the goods having been settled as above by the Apex Court, the present applications which claim that there is classificational mistake in the Tribunal's order can only be rejected. After hearing both sides, we reject these applications. (This part of the present order was pronounced in court on 4-10-2004).
2. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-I/II passed Orders-in-Original classifying Tarpaulin fabrics under Sub-Heading 5207.00 of the CETA Schedule (and dropping demands of duty by allowing benefit of Exemption Notifications) and Tarpaulin made-ups under SH 6301.00 of the said Schedule (and confirming demands of duty for various periods comprised in March, 1994-March, 1995). The Department filed appeals against these orders, challenging the classification of Tarpaulin fabrics under SH 5207.00 and asking for classification of the goods under SH 5906.90. At the same time, the assessees filed appeals against the classification of Tarpaulin made-ups under SH 6301,00 and for classification of the good under SH 5207.00. These appeals are listed below:
Order-in Revenue's Assessee's Assessee's Name
Original Appeal No. Appeal No.
No. 7/2000, E/955/2001 E/74/2001* M/s. Pondicherry dt. 26-9-2000
Water Proof ers
No. 8/2000, E/733/2001 E/1298/2000 M/s. Harley & Co. dt, 30-6-2000
No. 9/2000, E/731/2001 E/1265/2000 M/s. Geotex Mills (P) dt. 30-6-2000
Ltd.
No. 11/2000, E/732/2001 E/1287/2000 M/s. Indian Tarpau-dt. 30-6-2000
lin Industries
No. 13/2000, E/730/2001 E/1295/2000 M/s. Calcutta Can-dt. 30-6-2000
vass Co.
No. 14/2000, E/686/2001 E/1297/2000 M/s. Tarpaulin & dt. 30-6-2000
General Traders
*This appeal is accompanied by a pending stay application.
The Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-II passed Order-in-Original No. 10/2000, dt 30-6-2000 classifying Tarpaulin fabrics of M/s. Tamil Nadu Textile Industries under SH 5207.00 and dropped demand of duty thereon. A similar order (Order-in-original No. 6/2000, dt. 14-8-2000) was passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-I in respect of Tarpaulin fabrics manufactured and cleared by M/s. Maruthi Tarpaulin Industries and M/s. Sales International. The following appeals of the Department claiming classification of the goods under SH 5906.90 are against these orders:
Order-in-original Revenue's Appeal No. No. 10/2000, dt. 30-6-2000 E/734/2001 No. 6/2000, dt. 14-8-2000 E/974/2001, E/975/2001
Appeal No. E/1296/2000 of M/s. Rohini Mills (P) Ltd. for classification of Tarpaulin made-ups under SH 5207.00 is against Order-in-original No. 12/2000, dt. 30-6-2000 passed by C.C.E, Chennai-II classifying the goods under SH 6301.00 and confirming demand of duty thereon for 1994-95.
3. We have also before us nine other appeals with slay applications filed by assessees. Five of these appeals are against classification of Tarpaulin made-ups under SH 63.06 (as claimed by the Revenue) accompanied by demands of duty and are listed below:
Impugned Order Appeal No. Appellant
Order-in-Appeal No. E/62/2001 M/s. Bharat Textiles & Proofing
19/2000, dated 10-10- Industries Ltd.
2000
Order-in-Appeal Nos. E/1095/01 M/s. Rohini Mills (P) Ltd.
189-192/2001, dated E/1096/01 M/s. F. Harley & Co. 18-9-2001
E/1097/01 M/s. Tarpaulin General Traders
E/1098/01 M/s. Calcutta Canvas Co.
Appeal No. E/51/2001 of M/s. Tarpaulin International is against Order-in-original No. 24/2000, dt. 28-11-2000 of C.C.E, Chennai-II classifying Tarpaulin made-ups under SH 6301.00 and demanding duty thereon for March, 1994-March, 95. Appeals, E/60/2001 by M/s. Tamil Nadu Textile Industries and E/71/2001 by M/s. Bharat Textiles & Proofing Industries Ltd., are against the penalties imposed on them under Rule 209A by the same order. All the assessees have sought classification of their goods under SH 5207.00. The ninth appeal, E/309/2002 filed by M/s. Pondicherry Water Proofers, is against a demand of duty consequential to denial of SSI benefit under Notification No. 1/93-CE to Tarpaulin made-ups cleared under another person's trade mark ("calpaulin") during April, 1995-November' 96. This appeal challenges Order-in-Appeal No. 22/2002, dt. 14-3-2002 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals).
4. We have allowed the stay applications in all the nine appeals mentioned in para (3) and appeal No. E/74/2001 mentioned in para (2), in view of the prima facie case made out therein. All the 25 appeals referred to in the said paragraphs are being taken up for disposal.
5. We have examined the records and heard both sides. Ld. Advocate, Shri N. Venkatraman representing most of the assessees argued for classification of both Tarpaulin fabric/cloth and Tarpaulins (made-ups) under Heading 52.07 by relying on test reports, Chemical Examiner's oral evidence, CBEC's Circulars and case law. Ld. Advocate Sh. J. Sankararaman who represented M/s. Pondi- cherry Water Proofers adopted these arguments and also made a plea of limitation in Appeal No. E/74/2001 against the demand of duty raised on his clients. Ld. SDR contested counsel's arguments and also pleaded for classification of Tarpaulin fabric/cloth under Heading 59.06. She also sought to justify the denial of SSI benefit to the "calpaulin"- branded tarpaulins of M/s. Pondicherry Water Proofers. We have carefully considered all the submissions.
6. Apparently, the method employed by the assessees for manufacture of what is called "tarpaulin fabric/cloth" is substantially the same. To cite a specimen, M/s. Pondicherry Water Proofers manufactured it thus: A solution of wax, aluminium stearate and pigments were mixed and the solution was heated in a vessel and transferred to a tank. Grey cotton canvas fabric was dipped into this solution and passed through two rollers, whereafter the canvas was dried by exposure to atmosphere. The tarpaulin so manufactured was cut to size and stitched to make what are called "tarpaulin made-ups". Some of the assessees fitted their tarpaulin made- ups with eyelets also.
7. According to the Revenue, the tarpaulin fabrics manufactured and cleared by the assessees during the material periods were classifiable under SH 5906.90. The assessees would classify the goods under SH 5207.00. The competing entries are as under:
52.07 5207.00 Cotton fabrics (excluding fabrics covered under Heading Nos. 52.09, 52.10 and 52.11), -
(a) woven on looms other than hand-
looms, and
(b) subjected to the process of bleaching, mercerising, dyeing, printing, water-proofing, shrink-proofing, organdie processing or any other process or any two or more of these processes without the aid of power or steam 59.06 Textile fabrics, otherwise impreg-
nated, coated or covered (including fabrics covered partially or fully with textile flocks or with preparations containing textile flocks) -
Fabrics covered partially or fully with textile flocks or with preparation containing textile flocks:
5906.11 -- ------------------------------
5906.12 -- -------------------------------
5906.19 -- -------------------------------
5906.90 - Other.
8. Note 5(a) to Chapter 59 of CETA Schedule is relevant to the classification issue and the same reads:
5. Heading No. 59.06 does not apply to:
(a) Fabrics in which the impregnation, coating or covering cannot be seen with the naked eye (usually Chapters 50 to 55, 58 or 60); for the purpose of this provision, no account should be taken of any resulting change of colour.
On the basis of the above Chapter Note and the opinion of the Chief Chemist, CRCL, New Delhi, the Board clarified in Circular No. 6/91-CX. 1, dated 11-4-1991 as follows:
The issue has been further examined in the Board. Water-proofing is one of the processes specifically mentioned in Chapter 52 whereas Chapter 59 refers to impregnated/coated fabrics. The possible sub-heading for classifying the said fabric in Chapter 69 is 59.06 i.e., textile fabrics, otherwise impregnated/coated or covered. For classifying a product as otherwise impregnated/coated fabrics falling under sub-heading 59.06, there should be a visible formation of layer on the surface of the fabrics as per Note 4 to 59. If the manufacturing process of water-proofing is such that there is formation of a visible layer on the surface of the fabric, then the classification will be in sub-heading 59.06 despite the mention of water-proofing as one of the processes in Chapter 52. This view gets support from the interpretative rules that if goods merit consideration for classification equally in more than one headings, such goods should be classified under the heading which occurs last in the numerical order. However, if there is no visible layer formation, then the said wax proofed/Tarpaulin cloth should be classified in Chapter 52 of the Central Excise Tariff as water-proofed cloth, provided the base fabrics are cotton fabric. While determining whether the deposit on the surface is a visible layer or not, a 'layer' should be distinguished from mere presence of residues in uneven patches.
In Board's Circular No. 254/88/96-CX, dated 18-10-96, "visible layer" mentioned in the earlier Circular was explained as "uniform coating visible by the naked eye otherwise than through a change of colour". It was also suggested therein that, in case of doubt, samples could be got tested by Dy. Chief Chemist.
9. A co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal, in the case of CCE and cus., Aurangabad v. Ratan Tarpaulin Water Proof Industries 2000 (126) E.L.T. 782, had occasion to consider the above circulars of the Board as also to consult technical dictionaries/literature on textile materials, in the context of classifying a similar product. The relevant findings of the Bench, which held that the tarpaulin fabric manufactured by the above party was only water-proofed cotton fabric classifiable under Headings 52.06/52.07, are extracted below:
The Board further clarified that the classification of the goods may, therefore, be decided on the basis of facts and circumstances of each goods keeping in view the visibility criteria discussed in Board's aforesaid circular dated 11-4-91. We have also perused the definition of the term impregnated and water-proof in the Fairchild's Dictionary of Textiles. We note that in impregnated fabrics the interstices between the yarn are completely filled with an impregnating compound. Throughout the thickness of the material whereas water-proof fabrics are generally tightly woven and coated with rubber, plastic, linseed oil, cellulose esters etc. We have also seen the Glossary of Textile Term in the Handbook of Glossary of Textile Terms and the definition of impregnated Fabric and Water-proofing. On perusal of the definitions in the Glossary, we note that in the case of impregnated fabric the interstices between the yarn are completely filled with the impregnating compound whereas in water-proofing the interstices of the fabric as well as the surface of the material are covered with a film or skin in such a manner that the treated material is not only water-repellent, but impermeable to air and moisture. Looking at the process of manufacture undertaken by the appellant, we note that for making the product the canvas cloth is passed through a mixture of Wax, Resin, Red Mud, D.B. Oil, colour etc. and then pressed through two rollers. The resultant product was wax coated canvas cloth. Thus, the process undertaken appears to be that of water-proofing in as much as not only the interstices of the fabric are covered but the surface of the material are covered with a film or a skin. We have also perused Encyclopaedia of Chemical Technology of water-proofing which shows that water-proofing results from coating a fabric and filling the pores with film forming material etc. We also note that the Central Board of Excise & Customs in their Circular dated 18-10-96 also speak that a visible layer is different from uneven residues and patches.
10. We have got to ascertain whether the Revenue, whose burden it was to classify the goods, could show that the tarpaulin fabrics in question had any superficial coating/layer formation visible to the naked eye. The Chemical Examiner's test report on each sample was thus: The sample is composed of cotton base fabric coated/impregnated with a preparation of waxy matter. The coating/ impregnation can be seen with the naked eye. The Chemical Examiner [Smt. Saroja Raghavan] was cross-examined with reference to this report dated 16-6-95 coupled with the relevant test memo on 3-10-97. Her answers to two questions are crucial and the same are extracted below:
Q: Does this memo require you to ascertain the visible layer formation?
A: The question in the memo was whether the impregnation/coating done on the canvass merits classification under Chapter 59 and therefore the reply to the question is 'yes'.
Q. In your report you have stated coated being visible. In this case wax coating/impregnation having taken place, did it leave a visible layer formation?
A: I have mentioned in my report that wax coating/impregnation, there was no layer.
When the Chemical Examiner was asked to specify as to whether the sample was coated or impregnated, she replied that it was "coated/impregnated". In answer to a supplementary query, she said she had used the expression "coated/ impregnated" in her test reports because she had to use such expression as per the Tariff. Significantly, the Chemical Examiner could not categorically state that the fabric had a coating of waxy material but in any case she deposed that there was no layer on the fabric surface. Later on, when requested to comment on other experts' opinion (gathered by the assessees) that the fabrics had no visible layer on surface, another Chemical Examiner (Smt. N. Padmasini) offered the following opinion to the Department in her letter dated 26-4-99:
All the evidence produced (by) the appellants placed in the file agree to the (act that the fabrics under reference are water proofed, impregnated with preparation containing waxy material.
All of them are of the view that "visible to the naked eye" is applicable only to fabrics laminated with resins/polymers and this criteria is not applicable to fabrics of the type in question (waxed fabrics). All the opinions state that "no layer is visible to the naked eye.
It is pertinent to differentiate between coated fabrics and impregnated fabrics. "Coated fabrics" are those in which the surface of fabric is coated or covered and thus hides the whole surface of the fabric, here the "visibility of the coating" is of relevance whereas in impregnated fabrics "visibility criteria" is not necessary as is inferred from the definition of "coating" and "impregnation" given below from the monograph.
Fairchild's Dictionary of Textiles:
Impregnation:
'A fabric in which the interstices between the yarns are completely filled with an impregnating compound throughout the thickness of the material as distinguished from sized or coated materials where the material is applied on the surface and the interstices between are not completely filled."
However Chapter 59.07 - CET (which) reads as "Textile fabrics otherwise impregnated, coated or covered " shall cover the sample under reference vide HSN Vol. 2 Page 819 chapter sub-heading 59.07 "Textile fabrics otherwise impregnated, coated or covered".
However as already reported the coating/impregnation was visible to the naked eye and the laboratory has nothing to comment on the opinions put up in the file.
It appears from the above opinion that "coating" was sought to be differentiated from "impregnation". Coated fabrics are those in which the surface of the fabric is coated or covered and "thus hides the whole surface of the fabric", according to the above opinion. This would mean that where the fabric is coated, the base fabric structure is hidden, i.e., concealed from view, though the coating itself is visible. As "coating" and "layer formation" are synonymous expressions as understood by the Board (vide Circulars ibid), the fabric must have a uniform layer of coated material over its surface, visible to the naked eye and concealing the base fabric structure from view so as to qualify for classification under Heading 59.06 in terms of the criteria laid down by CBEC on the basis of Chapter I Note 5(a). But what was stated by Smt. Padmasini in her cross-examination (which was held after she furnished the above opinion) was that she did not have any idea whether the process of manufacture of the fabrics in question would result in layer formation. Thus the oral evidence of the two Chemical Examiners could hardly support the Revenue's claim that the tarpaulin fabrics had such layer formation on surface as could be seen with the naked eye. The Revenue's claim received a further jolt when the Director (Revenue Laboratories) [formerly designated "Chief Chemist"], CRCL, New Delhi, reported (after testing of samples of tarpaulin cloth from six of the assessees) vide letter No.41-Exc/98 dated 7-4-2000 as under:
In case of each of the above six samples interstices between the yarns are not completely filled and light passes through the interstices. Warp and weft yarns of the fabric in each of the six samples are visible with naked eves thus there is no formation of layer on each of the samples visible to the naked eye.
(Emphasisadded).
Moreover, all other experts cited by the assessees certified that the tarpaulin fabrics did not have visible layer formation and this fact was acknowledged by the Chemical Examiner herself vide her letter dated 26-4-99. These expert opinions virtually stood corroborated with the above report of the Director (Revenue Laboratories) and the same were not contested by the Chemical Examiner when called upon to comment on them. The Department could not prove that the tarpaulin fabrics had "layer formation visible to the naked eye". On the other hand, the available evidence showed that there was no visible layer formation on the fabrics. The fabrics did not pass the test laid down in the Board's Circulars (which are binding on the Revenue in these cases) for classification under Heading 59.06. The fabrics, on the other hand, qualified to be classified under Heading 52.07 for the reasons noted by the Bench in Ratan Tarpaulin Water Proof Industries (supra).
11. Apart from Ratan Tarpaulin (supra), a plethora of decisions, old and new, were cited by learned Counsel in support of the plea for classification of Tarpaulin fabric under Heading 52.07. In the case of Binny ltd v. Collector of Central Excise, Madras , the goods considered for classification was tarpaulin fabricated by the assessee from proofed coloured canvas procured from various proofers during the period June, 1980 to February, 1985. The Tribunal classified it under sub-item (I) of Item No. 19 of the old Central Excise Tariff, following certain decisions of the Bombay and Gujarat High Courts. It has been noted by the Tribunal in numerous cases under the new Central Excise Tariff that SH 5207.00 (Heading 52.07) under this Tariff has incorporated what was provided under Clause (b) of sub-item (I) of Item No. 19 of the old Central Excise Tariff. We have already extracted the new tariff entry earlier in this order. For the sake of comparison, we shall extract the old tariff entry here:
1. Cotton fabrics, other than (i) embroidery in the piece, in strips or in motifs, and (ii) fabrics impregnated, coated or laminated with preparations of cellulose derivatives, or of other artificial plastic materials -
(a) ...
(b) cotton fabrics, subjected to the process of bleaching, mercerising dyeing, printing, water-proofing, rubberising, shrink-proofing, organdie processing or any other process or any two or more of these processes.
Following the decision in Binny's case as well as the decision in Ratan Tarpaulin Water Proof Industries case, the Tribunal held, in the case of Ducksole (I) Ltd. v. CCE, Bangalore 2000 (125) E.L.T. 830, that wax-coated water-proof canvas or tarpaulin cloth was classifiable under heading 52.06 under the new Central Excise Tariff Schedule. The decision in Ducksole (supra) was followed in Cargo Tarpaulin Industries v. CCE B'lore , wherein tarpaulin cloth was classified under heading 52.06 based on a finding that there was no visible formation of layer on the surface of the fabric. In the case of Modi Enterprises v. CCE, Bhu-baneshwar , water-proof fabrics manufactured by the assessee were classified under heading 52.07. The decision of the Tribunal was to the same effect in Kohinoor Tarpaulin Industries v, CCE & cus., Pune . In the case of Ashish Enterprises v. CCE & cus., Aurangabad , also water-proofed cotton fabric was held classifiable under heading 52.07. Again in Kalpataru Industries v. CCE, Mumbai , the Tribunal classified water-proofed cotton fabric under heading 52.07 as claimed by the assessee. In all these cases, the Revenue's claim under heading 59.06 was rejected.
12. Following the line of decisions on classification of similarly manufactured tarpaulin fabrics, we hold that the tarpaulin fabrics manufactured by the assessees during the material periods are to be classified only under heading 52.07 of the CETA Schedule and not under heading 59.06 of the said Schedule. In the result, the Revenue's appeals claiming classification of the said goods under heading 59.06 are liable to be rejected.
13. As regards "tarpaulin made-ups", we have already mentioned how these "made-ups" were made out of tarpaulin fabric. Tarpaulin fabric was cut to size, stitched and "eyeletted" to obtain what are called "tarpaulin made-ups". It has been contended on behalf of the assessees that no manufacture was involved in this process. On the other hand, the Revenue has contended that tarpaulin made-ups are a distinct marketable commodity known to Trade and, therefore, it should be held to be excisable. It has also been pointed out that SIT 6301.00 (Heading 63.01) is an entry specifically covering made-up textile articles including tarpaulin. It has been argued that, on account of this specific coverage of the item in the Central Excise Tariff, it should be held to be exigible to duty. Both sides have also relied on case law in support of their respective arguments.
14. It is true that tarpaulin made-ups are covered by heading 63.01. But this, by itself, is not enough for holding the goods to be exigible to Central Excise duty. It has, invariably, to be shown that the commodity resulted from "manufacture" within the meaning of this term under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Moti Laminates Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Ahmedabad 1995 (76) E.L.T. 241 (S.C.). Their lordships' ruling on the point is as under:
... where the goods are specified in the Schedule they are excisable goods but whether such goods can be subjected to duty would depend on whether they were produced or manufactured by the person on whom duty is proposed to be levied. The expression 'produced or manufactured, has further been explained by this Court to mean that the goods so produced must satisfy the test of marketability. Consequently it is always open to an assesses to prove that even though the goods in which he was carrying on business were excisable goods being mentioned in the Schedule but they could not be subjected to duty as they were not goods either because they were not produced or manufactured by it or if they had been produced or manufactured they were not marketed or capable of being marketed.
The question is; now, whether any such "manufacture" was involved in the process of cutting-to-size, stitching and 'eyeletting' of tarpaulin fabric. This question was settled by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in TRC No. 215/90 [State of Andhra Pradesh v. Binny Ltd.] as per order dated 13-2-1992, wherein it was held that stitching of the edges of cotton canvas and fitment of eyelets thereto did not bring about any material change in the essential character of cotton canvas and, therefore, the commodity would continue to be covered by the expression "cotton fabrics" under Item No. 5 of the Fourth Schedule to the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act. It needs to be mentioned in this context that for the purpose of the said item No. 5, the APGST Act had adopted the definition of "cotton fabrics" given under Tariff Item 19 of the old Central Excise Tariff. We have already noted the parity between Item No. 19(I)(b) of the old Central Excise Tariff and SH 5207.00 (Heading 52.07) of the new Tariff. It would follow that the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court will govern the instant issue as to whether the conversion of tarpaulin fabric to made-ups would amount to "manufacture" for the purpose of levy of CE duty. No better judicial authority on the issue has been cited by the Revenue. Therefore, following the decision of the High Court, we hold that no "manufacture" was involved in the conversion of tarpaulin fabric to "made-ups" and, therefore, the tarpaulin made-ups were not excisable. In the result, the assessees' appeals' challenging the demands of duty on "Tarpaulin made-ups" are liable to be allowed. Appeals E/60/2001 and E/71/2001 are against penalties imposed on the appellants under Rule 209A. These penalties are associated with the confiscation of goods challenged in Appeal No. E/51/2001 filed by M/s. Tarpaulin International. But we have already found that this appeal of M/s. Tarpaulin International challenging the demand of duty on Tarpaulin made-ups' is bound to succeed. It would follow that the confiscation of tarpaulin made-ups seized from their factory is also unsustainable. Consequently, the confiscation-related penalties on M/s. Tamil Nadu Textile Industries and M/s. Bharat Textiles and Proofing Industries Ltd. (appellants in E/60/2001 and E/71/2001) are also liable to be vacated. In Appeal No. E/309/2002 of M/s. Pondicherry Water Proofers, the challenge is against a demand of duty on "made-ups" consequential to denial of SSI exemption benefit. Now that we have held the "made-ups" to be non-dutiable, this demand also is unsustainable and the question whether the assessee was entitled to use 'calpau-lin' brand-name on their commodity without inviting the bar of para 4 of Notification No. 1/93-CE during the material period is no longer relevant.
15. In the result, all appeals of the Revenue are rejected and all appeals of the assessees are allowed.
(Pronounced in open court on 6-1-2005)