Page 136 - GSTL_23rd July 2020_Vol 38_Part 4

502 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 38
applicant takes the view that Circular No. 433/66/98-CX-6, dated
27-11-1998 has erred in treating fusible interlining cloth as a cate-
gory of textile fabric that is spattered by spraying with visible par-
ticles of thermoplastic material and is capable of providing a
bond to other fabrics or materials on the application of heat and
pressure. In the absence of any such submission, it is reasonable
to agree with the view expressed by CBEC in Circular No.
433/66/98-CX-6, dated 27-11-1998 that fusible interlining cloth is
classifiable under Heading 5903.
(x) In view of the above findings, the applicant’s reference to Rule
3(b) of the General rules of Interpretation is of no use.
4. The Appellant has filed the instant Appeal against the above Ad-
vance Ruling with the prayer to set aside/modify the said impugned advance
ruling passed by the WBAAR on the following grounds :
(a) The WBAAR grossly has ignored the test report submitted, which
establishes that the goods in question bear dotted pattern and are
partially coated with polythene and, therefore, the said goods fall
outside the ambit of Chapter 59 of the Tariff Act in view of exclu-
sion No. 4 to Chapter Note 2(a) of the said Chapter. Therefore,
Chapter 59 was not applicable to the said goods.
(b) The WBAAR ignored the judgment in the case of Goodswear Fashion
Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2019 (23) G.S.T.L. 151 (A.A.R. - GST) where in
similar facts and circumstances, the WBAAR of Uttarakhand held
that such fabrics would fall under Chapter 52 or 55, 58 or 60 of the
Tariff Act and not Heading 5903.
(c) The WBAAR misread Circular No. 24/Coated Fabric/88-CX.1,
dated 2-9-1988, wherein at paragraphs 8 and 9, it has been stated
unambiguously that fabrics partially coated or partially covered
with plastic and bearing designs were excluded from purview of
Heading 59.03, according to Chapter Note 2(a)(1) of Chapter 59 of
the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff.
(d) CBEC’s Circular No. 5/89 clearly recognized that barring the period
between 20-3-1990 and 16-3-1995 (when the Chapter Note 2(c) was
in existence), fusible interlining was covered under Chapters 50 to
55. depending on the textile materials contained therein.
(e) In the case of Madura Coats v. CBEC reported in 2004 (163) E.L.T. 164
(Mad.), the purported Circular bearing No. 433/66/98-CX, dated
27-11-1998 had been challenged, which stated that the deletion or
omission of Chapter Note 2(c) of the Excise Tariff did not result in
changing the classification of fusible Interlining Cloth under Head-
ing 59.03. The circular was quashed in the High Court decision.
Hence, this Circular should not have been relied upon by the
WBAAR, while passing the ruling.
(f) In the case of Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. reported in
1999 (107) E.L.T. 488 (T), similar view as that of the Hon’ble Madras
High Court in the Madura Coat case was taken.

GST LAW TIMES  23rd July 2020  136