c

Circular No. 241/75/96-Central Excise

dated 3/9/96
F.No. 58/4/96-CX.I

Government of India

Ministry of Finance

Department of Revenue

Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi

Subject: Notification No. 30/95-CE dated 16.3.95- Clarification regarding

I am directed to say that a doubt has been raised on the interpretation of Notification No. 30/95-CE dated 16.3.95 (S.No. 1) regarding exemption to certain narrow woven fabrics falling within Ch. 58 from Central Excise duty and/ or additional duty of customs

The Commissioner (Customs), madras has sought to apply the Notification No. 30/95-CE dated 16.3.95(S.No. 1) only to narrow woven fabrics (having a width not exceeding 30 cm) not containing elastomeric yarn or rubber thread on the following varieties only:-

a) Pile Fabrics

b) Chenile Fabrics

c) Tufted Towelling and similar Woven Terry Fabrics

d) Tufted Textile Fabrics

Plain narrow woven fabrics of variety other than the aforesaid varieties have been denied the benefit to notification No. 30/95 and subjected to additional duty of Customs at tariff rates at the time of its import. On an appeal filed by the party, CEGAT Madras Bench in its order No. 934/1996 dated 25.6.96 has held that the first two items covered in the notification No. 30/95(S.No.1) i.e. Woven Pile Fabrics & Chenille Fabrics fall under 58.02. After each item there is a coma. Thereafter narrow woven fabrics are also mentioned, which is mentioned after a coma. Therefore it is clear that this has to be read as disjunctively as held by Hon”ble Supreme Court in the case of Shri N.K. Salpekar vs. Sri Sunil Kumar (AIR 1988 SC 1841, 1813 & 1844), Sri A.K. Gopalan vs. State of Madras (AIR 1950 SC 27 & 45) and Sh. Mohd. Shabbir vs. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1979 SC 564 & 565). Therefore the CEGAT has viewed that since there is a coma and after that coma the narrow Woven Fabrics are mentioned, the same are to be read disjunctively and the reasoning that narrow woven fabrics ought of fall in the general clause of the preceding five items cannot be held to be correct.

The matter has also been further examined by the Board and the Board has accepted the above said interpretation of Notfn. No. 30/95 given by the CEGAT.

Sd/
(S.C.Bhatia)
Under Secretary to the Government of India

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Join Taxguru Group on Whatsapp

taxguru on whatsapp WHATSAPP GROUP LINK

Join Taxguru Group on Whatsapp

taxguru on whatsapp WHATSAPP GROUP LINK

Join Taxguru Group on Whatsapp

taxguru on whatsapp WHATSAPP GROUP LINK

Join Taxguru Group on Whatsapp

taxguru on whatsapp WHATSAPP GROUP LINK

Join Taxguru Group on Whatsapp

taxguru on whatsapp WHATSAPP GROUP LINK

Join Taxguru Group on Whatsapp

taxguru on whatsapp WHATSAPP GROUP LINK

Join Taxguru Group on Whatsapp

taxguru on whatsapp WHATSAPP GROUP LINK

Join Taxguru Group on Whatsapp

taxguru on whatsapp WHATSAPP GROUP LINK

Join Taxguru Group on Whatsapp

taxguru on whatsapp WHATSAPP GROUP LINK

Join Taxguru Group on Whatsapp

taxguru on whatsapp WHATSAPP GROUP LINK

Join Taxguru Group on Telegram

taxguru on telegram TELEGRAM GROUP LINK

More Under Excise Duty

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Search Posts by Date

January 2022
M T W T F S S
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31