ORDER
JH Joglekar, Member (T)
1. These six appeals filed by t he Revenue have the same issue and arise out of the common Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). These are being disposed of together vide this common order.
2. The respondent are not present in spite of notice but have filed cross objection.
3. The issue is of interpretation of Notfn.No. 6/88-CE dated 19.1.88. Vide this Notification fents and rags of man-made fabrics falling under Heading No.54.09, 54.12, 55.08, 55.11 and 55.12 were eligible for concessional rate of duty. The proviso thereto reads as under:
Provided that the aggregate quantity of clearances of such fents and rags from any factory for home consumption, by or on behalf of one or more manufacturers at the rate specified in this notification shall not exceed five per cent of the total quantity of clearances of man-made fabrics falling under heading Nos. 54.09, 54.12, 55.08, 55.11 and 55.12 of the said Schedule during a year.
4. This proviso was interpreted by the Asstt.Collector so as to mean that the total quantity of fabrics cleared including the clearances of fents and rags should betaken to be the basis of calculation for the ratability of clearances of fents, rags etc. Against this orders, the Revenue filed a review application. The Commissioner(Appeals) upheld the logic of the Asstt.Collector but directed recalculation in view of certain doubts. The present appeals agitate this finding.
5. In the ground of appeal it is once against claimed that the quantity of sound fabrics alone should be taken for counting the 5% retability of fents and rags. Shri Jain submits that this interpretation would be logical.
6. In the cross objection, the respondents submit that the notification has to be taken as it exists and there is no room for intendment in its interpretation.
7. We have considered the submissions made. We have examined Chapter headings 54 and 55. The term waste has been defined in the respective Chapter notes. The Phrase does cover either fents or rags which are specifically defined in the said Notification. The fents are defined to be pieces of damaged fabrics of specific length and of specific width. Rags have also been similarly defined. The respective Tariff headings classify these products as per their basic material, the issue whether they are processed or not, whether they are woven or non woven or handlooms, but do specify the width or length thereof as essential criteria for such classification. Therefore, for interpreting the phrase “clearance of man-made fabrics falling under …..” there is no scope of exclusion of any variety of fabrics such as fents or rags there from. In other words, in computing the basis of 5% concessional rate of clearances, the sum total of clearances of the fabrics including those of fents and rags would have to be taken in to account.
8. We thus hold that the Commissioner was correct in his finding. The appeals from the Revenue do not survive and are dismissed.
9. The cross objection also stands disposed of
(Dictated in Court)