ORDER
P.C. Jain, Vice President
1. Briefly stated facts of this case are as follows :-
1.1 The respondents herein are manufacturers of cotton fabrics and other fabrics falling under Chapters 52,54,55 and 84 of CETA, 1985. In respect of cotton fabrics falling under TSH 5206 and 5209 the respondents cleared the trade samples and availed exemption from payment of Central Excise duty under Notification No. 258/82 and was required to pay duty on quantity of trade samples cleared in excess of the prescribed limitation in the said notification.
1.2 On scrutiny of the relevant documents, Superintendent concerned noticed that the respondents was determining the quantity of exemption by availing the exemption up to 0.1% by clubbing the clearance of all the sorts of cotton fabrics falling under Chapter 52. It appeared to the Superintendent that under the Notification 258/82 the exemption limit of 0.1% provided is deter-minable for each sort or variety cleared in a month and Central Excise duty was recoverable on quantity of sample of each sort or variety cleared in excess of that limit. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued proposing to recover duty in respect of samples drawn in excess of 0.1% of each sort of fabric. On adjudication, the demand of duty was confirmed. However, the respondents herein succeeded before the lower appellate authority.
1.3 The said authority has held that it appears from the show cause notice that each sort of the same variety of fabric has been considered as one sort or variety. Collector (Appeals) holds that it unjustifiably narrows the scope of the notification. Going by the description of the words, he has further held that the expression means that each kind or variety of fabrics as such as they are known in the trade i.e. dhoty, long cloth etc. is to be taken into account. This is also confirmed by the use of expression “variety” in the Textiles (Consumer Protection) Regulations, 1988. Hence this appeal by the Revenue.
2. Learned JDR, Shri V.M. Udhoji reiterates the aforesaid contentions of Revenue that the Notification lays down the limit for drawing of samples at 0.1% of each sort. Sort has definite connotation in Textile Industry based on fixed warp count, weft count, number of ends in reed and number of ends in pick and also the width of the fabric at grey stage and width of cloth after processing. It is, therefore, urged that the impugned order is not correct as it gives different meaning to the ‘sort’ such as dhoty, long cloth etc.
3. We do not quite appreciate the grounds of appeal. The notification uses the word not only ‘sort’ but also ‘variety’ of fabric. The word ‘variety’ will have definitely different meaning from ‘sort’, otherwise two different words with the same meaning would not have been used. Construction placed by the Revenue would make the word ‘variety’ superfluous. This is not permissible. The notification, therefore, provides drawal of samples up to 0.1% either of ‘sort’ or of ‘variety’ of the fabric. Meaning given by the lower appellate authority to ‘variety’ of fabric is correct and it should not be confined merely to the ‘sort’, as contended by the Revenue.
4. In view of the above, we do not find any substance in Revenue’s appeal. Hence, we dismiss the same.