ORDER
P.K. Kapoor, Member (T)
1. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of various kinds of paper, including news print. They imported a consignment of Venta Nip Press Felt and filed Bill of Entry No. AD 1349, which was assessed under Heading 59.16/17 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 @ 40% + 25% + CVD @ 10%. A demand was issued under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 alleging a short levy of Rs. 92,148/- on the grounds that the goods were assessable under Heading 59.01/15 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 @ 100% + 40% + CVD @ 10%. The Assistant Collector in his order dated 10-6-1985 confirmed the demand. In the appeal against the order passed by the Assistant Collector, the appellants claimed that the imported Press Felts were identifiable .textile articles of a kind commonly used in machinery and were therefore classifiable under Heading 59.16/17 Customs Tariff Act, 1975, in terms of Chapter Tote 4(a)(iv) of Chapter 59 of the Tariff. In the order dated 22-11-1985, the Collector of Customs (Appeals) referred to the technical write-up submitted by the importers and observed that the goods having been produced by a process of weaving and needling, could not be deemed as woven textile fabrics referred to in Note 4(a)(iv) of Chapter 59 of the Tariff. He therefore rejected the appeal and held that the goods were classifiable under Heading 59.01/15 and not under Heading 59.16/17 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as claimed by the appellants.
2. On behalf of the appellants, the learned Advocate Shri Ravindra Bhatt appeared before us. He referred to the technical write-up which was filed before the Collector (Appeals) and stated that even though the extract from the technical write-up reproduced in the impugned order clearly stated that the imported felt was a woven fabric, the Collector (Appeals) had erroneously inferred that the felt in question was not a woven fabric. He contended that the imported Press Felt for use in News Print making machines was classifiable under Heading 59.16/17 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 in terms of Note 4(a)(iv) to Chapter 59 of the Tariff since the relevant technical write-up, which was filed before the Collector (Appeals) confirmed that they were woven fabrics. In support of his arguments, Shri Bhatt placed reliance on the following case law :-
(i) Porritts & Spencer (Asia) Ltd. v. State of Haryana – 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1607 (S.C)
(ii) Bharat Sales Corporation, Calcutta v. Collector of Customs, Calcutta – 1987 (10) ETR 892
3. On behalf of the Revenue, the learned SDR Shri L.C. Chakraborty contended that the imported Press Felt could not be deemed as woven textile fabric since it was produced through a special needling process. He argued that not being woven textile fabrics the classification of the imported goods under Heading 59.16/17 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 was ruled out in terms of Note 4(a)(iv) of Chapter 59 of the Tariff. He claimed that the case law cited by the appellants was not relevant to the issue under consideration and argued that in determining the classification of the goods in question the relevant Chapter Notes would have overriding effect.
4. We have gone through the records of the case and considered the submissions made on behalf of both sides. It is seen that the short point that arises for consideration in this case is whether the ‘Endless Venta Press Felt’ imported by the appellants for use as spare part of their high speed newsprint making machine was classifiable under Heading 59.16/17 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. In this regard, we consider it desirable to reproduce below the Heading 59.16/17 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975:
——————————————————————————–
Heading No. Sub-heading No. and description of article Rate of duty
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
59.16/17 Transmission, conveyor or elevator belts or belting,
of textile material, whether or not strengthened,
with metal or other material; textile fabrics and
textile articles, of a kind commonly used in machi-
nery or plant. 40%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On perusal of the wordings of Heading 59.16/17 it follows that the imported “Endless Press Felt” could be considered as classifiable under this heading only it could be deemed as a “textile fabric of a kind commonly used in machinery or plant”. In this regard it is seen that Note 4(a)(iv) of Chapter 59 of the Tariff which is reproduced below defines the scope of the expression “textile fabric of a kind commonly used in machinery or plant”.
4. ” In Heading No. 59.16/17, the expression, “textile fabrics and textile articles, of a kind commonly used in machinery or plant” is to be taken to apply to the following goods which are to be taken as not falling within any other Heading of Section XI:
(a) textile products (other than those having the character of the products of Chapter 59), the following only:
(i) …
(ii) ... (iii) ... (iv) woven textile fabrics whether or not felted, impregnated or coated, of a kind commonly used in paper making or other machinery, tubular or endless with single or multiple warp and/or weft, or flat woven with multiple warp and/or weft;"
5. It is seen that before the Collector (Appeals), in support of their claim that the “Endless Press Felt” being a “woven textile fabric commonly used in paper making machinery” was an article covered by the Note 4(a)(iv) of Chapter 59 of the Tariff, the appellants placed reliance on the following technical write-up explaining the process of felt manufacturing technology :-
“Synthetic yarns are first made out of polyester and polyamide. They are woven looms and the voids are filled by synthetic fibres by needling actions. The Woven Fabric with filled up fibre is then conditioned by stretching and are further chemically treated to develop good dewatering characteristics”.
The Collector (Appeals), however, held that the felts in question being the product of a process of weaving and needling action, could not be deemed as woven textile fabrics in terms of Note 4(a)(iv) of Chapter 59. However, in this regard it is seen from the following extract from decision of the Hon. Supreme Court in the case of Poritts & Spencer (Asia) Ltd. v. State of Haryana reported in 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1607 that it would be unwise to confine the weaving process to the conventional warp and weft pattern :-
“The word ‘textiles’ is derived from the Latin ‘texere’ which means ‘to weave’ and it means any woven fabric. When yarn, whether cotton, silk, woollen, rayon, nylon, or of any other description or made out of any other material is woven into a fabric, what comes into being is a ‘textile’ and it is known as such. It may be cotton textile, silk textile, woollen textile, rayon textile, nylon textile or any other kind of textile. The method of weaving adopted may be the warp and woof pattern as is generally the case in most of the textiles, or it may be any other process or technique. There is such phenomenal advance in science and technology, so wondrous is the variety of fabrics manufactured from materials hitherto unknown or un-thought of and so many are the new techniques invented for making fabric out of yarn that it would be most unwise to confine the weaving process to the warp and woof pattern. Whatever be the mode of weaving employed, woven fabric would be ‘textiles’. What is necessary is no more than weaving of yarn and weaving would mean binding or putting together by some process so as to form a fabric. Moreover, a textile need not be of any particular size or strength or weight. It may be in small pieces or in big rolls; it may be weak or strong, light or heavy, bleached or dyed, according to the requirement of the purchaser. The use to which it may be put is also immaterial and does not bear on its character as a textile. It may be used for making wearing apparel, or it may be used as a covering or bedsheet or it may be used as tapestry or upholstery or as duster for cleaning or as towel for drying the body. A textile may have diverse uses and it is not the use which determines its character as textile. It is, therefore, no argument against the assessee that ‘dryer felts’ are used only as absorbents of moisture in the process of manufacture in a paper manufacturing unit. That cannot militate against ‘dryer felts’ falling within the category of ‘textiles’, if otherwise they satisfy the description of ‘textiles’.”
The Collector (Appeals) had ruled out the assessment of the disputed Tress Felts’ under Heading 59.16/17 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as “textile fabrics of a kind commonly used in machinery” on the reasoning that they could not be deemed as ‘woven textile fabrics’ in terms of Rule 4(a)(iv) of Chapter 59 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. In our view, the finding of the Collector (Appeals) was erroneous since on a plain reading of the words “woven textile fabrics whether or not felted” in Rule 4(a)(iv) of Chapter 59 of the Tariff, it follows that the expression ‘textile fabrics’ in Heading 59.16/17, Customs Tariff Act, 1975, would include even fabrics such as felts which are not necessarily woven in the conventional manner using both warp and weft. For these reasons the ”Press Felts” in question which were admittedly for use in paper making machines has to be held as classifiable under Heading 59.16/17 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.
6. In view of the foregoing, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.