Page 138 - GSTL_23rd July 2020_Vol 38_Part 4

504 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 38
10. The appellant also claimed during hearing that their product merits
classification under sub-heading 5209 or 5212, if not under 5208. We find that
similar logic as in the case of sub-heading 5208 applies in respect of the sub-
headings 5209 and 5212 also. Sub-heading 5209 contains products namely woven
fabrics of cotton, containing 85% or more by weight of cotton, weighing more than 200
G/M and sub-heading 5212 contains products namely other woven fabrics of cotton.
2
It is seen that both the sub-headings 5209 and 5212 contain products, which are
basically woven fabrics of cotton. On the same reasoning as in paragraph 9
above, it can be concluded that fusible interlining cloth is not a woven fabric and
hence it cannot be classified under any of the said sub-headings 5209 and 5212 of
the Tariff.
11. The contention of the respondents is that the product merits classi-
fication under sub-heading 5903. Sub-heading 5903 contains products namely
textile fabrics, impregnated, coated, covered or laminated with plastics, other than those
of Heading 5902. Chapter Note 2 of Chapter 59 of the Tariff provides the descrip-
tion of products which should come under sub-heading 5903. Note 2(a) says that
textile fabrics, impregnated, coated, covered or laminated with plastics, whatever
the weight per square metre and whatever the nature of the plastic material
(compact or cellular), barring a few exceptions are to be classified under sub-
heading 5905. It is clear from the sample produced by the appellant as well as the
dot printing process that the product namely fusible interlining cloth qualifies
the tests to be classified under sub-heading 5903 of the Tariff. It is seen from the
sample of the fusible interlining cloth that the coating of polyethylene can be
seen with naked eye, can be bent manually around a cylinder and is not com-
pletely coated with plastics. The representative of the appellant strongly pleaded
that their product is partially coated with plastic and bears design. However, on
examination of the sample, it is seen that the pattern of dots that form on the sur-
face of the product is due to the very process of dot printing and the same is visi-
ble on the entire surface of the cloth. Thus, it cannot be said that the cloth is par-
tially coated with plastics and that the dotted design resulted from the treatment
leading, to such coating. Therefore, the claim of the appellant’s advocate does not
hold good and the exclusion clause (4) of Chapter Note 2(a) of Chapter 59, which
is essential for being excluded from Chapter 59, is not applicable to fusible inter-
lining cloth manufactured by the appellant. From the above discussion, it is clear
that the subject product merits classification under sub-heading 5903 of the Tar-
iff.
12. The appellant has heavily relied upon the decision of Goodswear
Fashion Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2019 (23) G.S.T.L. 154 (A.A.R. - GST). On perusal of
the decision of the said decision of the AAR, Uttarakhand, it is seen that it has
not taken into account the relevant circulars of CBEC relating to classification of
fusible interlining cloth and hence it cannot be said to reflect the true legal posi-
tion on this issue.
13. In view of the above discussions, we find no merit in the instant
appeal. We dismiss the appeal filed by M/s. Sadguru Seva Paridhan Pvt. Ltd.
and uphold the WBAAR’s Ruling No. 33/WBAAR/2019-20, dated 11-11-2019.
14. Send copy of this order to the Appellant and the Respondent for in-
formation.

_______

GST LAW TIMES  23rd July 2020  138