ORDER
Shiben K. Dhar, Member (T)
1. This appeal is directed against order-in-original dated 18-1-1990 of Additional Collector of Central Excise, Rajkot.
2. The Appellants are alleged to have removed Typewriter Ribbons without discharging duty.
3. Arguing on behalf of the Appellants the ld. Counsel submits that the impugned goods were in the nature of only slitted cotton fabrics and had not attained the essential character of the typewriter ribbons. In this connection he referred to the statement of Shri Deora, Proprietor, M/s. Crown Stationers who stated that essential operations required for manufacture of typewriter ribbons were carried out only at their factory.
4. Ld. DR draws attention to the Interpretative Rule 2(a) and submits that Additional Collector rightly relied upon this rule to hold that the slitted cotton fabrics had attained the character of finished goods and therefore in terms of Tariff Heading 96.12 which refers to tape or similar ribbons inked or otherwise the goods were liable to duty.
5. We have heard both sides. The admitted position is that in order to manufacture typewriter ribbons slitted cotton fabrics have to be glued, inked at stamped. Of course, uninked fabrics are also liable to duty in terms of Heading 96.12. It is the contention of the appellants that what they supplied were mere slitted cotton fabrics which had not undergone any of the operations such as would convert them into the typewriter ribbons. The statement of Shri Deora, Proprietor of the Crown Stationers, makes it very clear that essential processes were carried out only at their factory. Shri Deora admitted that the fabrics after receipt at his unit underwent process of glueing, stamping and inking, packing etc. for manufacture as Typewriter Ribbons. In order to invoke Rule 2(a) it is necessary to establish that incomplete or unfinished goods have essential character of the complete and finished goods. It is obvious that essential character would emerge not merely from slitted fabrics which are more in the nature of raw materials but it would emerge only after glueing, stamping and inking. In view of this we are satisfied that slitted cotton fabrics which have not undergone any essential process required to convert them into typewriter ribbons cannot be held to have acquired character of typewriter ribbons in that form.
6. In view of this we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
