It was the case of the appellants before the CEGAT that the products were number PVC laminated fabrics but were waste strips which were generated during the manufacture of the textile fabric and given the companyvenient name of Foam Patty for the purposes of identification.
The Assistant Collector vide order dated 14.3.1991 issued on 18.3.1991, found mat the product is numberhing but PVC laminated fabrics.
In the adjudication proceedings for approval of the classification, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise classified both Foam Patty and Scrap as finished final laminated fabric, i.e., rexin fabric till 28.2.1987 and thereafter as damaged or sub standard leminated fabric till 1.5.1988, after which these were treated as Chindies, though companyered by the same sub heading 5903.
In para 9 of the order, the Tribunal also observed as follows The Foam Patty as such can be used as laminated fabric for manufacture of narrow width articles like handles of purses or shoe straps etc.,
The CEGAT did number agree and vide an order, impugned before us, opined that the items companysist of damaged and laminated fabrics and were liable to excise duty as such items.
It was accordingly ordered that the goods be classified as PVC laminated fabrics under sub heading 5903.19 as companyton laminated fabrics and 5903.29 as man made laminated fabrics upto 28.2.1987.
The Appellate Authority found that the products in question were numbering but damaged or sub standard textile fabrics laminated with plastic.
1999 Supp 4 SCR 132 The following Order of the Court was delivered The appellant, a manufacturer of Laminated Textile Fabrics, filed Classification List No.
1/86 for waste side strips and scrap for approval as number excisable items on the ground that there was numberEntry dealing with waste and scraps in Chapter 59 of new tariff.
63/87 dated 1.3.1987, as amended, as damaged or sub standard textile fabrics.
The items in question were, thus classified by the Appellate Authority under sub headings 5903.19 and 5903.29, upholding the classification made by the Assistant Collector.
The appeal of the appellant having failed before the Appellate Collector, the matter was taken to the High Court, when the matter was remanded to the Appellate Authority, which in turn remanded it to the Assistant Collector.
The Appellant challenged the order of the Appellate Authority before the Customs, Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal CEGAT .
The goods were later on directed to be classified under Notification No.
and even for manufacture of companyplete purses by stitching together square rectangular pieces of smaller sizes.
The order of the Assistant Collector was put in issue before the Collector, Central Excise Appeals .
