Collector Of Central Excise vs Sunita Textiles Ltd. on 19 February, 1993
On this contention that the product is not a stiffened fabric, he relied on the ruling rendered in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Ashoka Dairy [1983 (53) STC 231], Hindustan Aluminium Corp. v. State of U.P. [1981 (48) STC 411 SC], Pratap Rajasthan Copper Foils & Laminates Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise [1989 (44) E.L.T. 775], Raletronics Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise [1992 (60) E.L.T. 388]. The learned DR submitted that the Assistant Collector had dropped the proceedings on the ground that it is not a coated fabric and this finding had been challenged. Therefore, it followed that the question in full has been referred to the Tribunal. This point was for consideration before the Collector (Appeals) and the same point is also before us. She reiterated her earlier arguments that the product had the characteristics of Buckram and it is a stiffened textile fabric and its classification under Chapter 59 has to be upheld. She also pointed out that the end-use of the product can be taken into consideration for the purpose of classification.