The Respondents were called upon to pay duty.
It is an admitted position that the goods manufactured by the Respondents are cut in the shape of seats and are used only in seats.
Thereafter, three further show cause numberices dated 31st May 1990, 1st May 1990 and 31st May 1990 respectively were issued to the Respondents calling upon them to show cause as to why the benefit wrongly availed of them under Notification No.
The question involved is whether the goods manufactured by the Respondents fall under Tariff Item 94.01 or Tariff Item 40.08.
This had been approved.
It is also necessary to companysider certain Chapter Notes which have been relied upon by the parties.
After hearing the Respondents, by Orders dated 13th March 1991, it was held that the Respondents were number entitled to exemption.
40.08 Plates, blocks, sheets, strikes, rods and profile shapes of vulcanized rubber other than hardened rubber of cellular rubber.
The Respondents filed the Appeals, which were dismissed by the Commissioner Appeals .
The Respondents had filed a classification list showing the products under Tariff Heading 40.08.
However, a show cause numberice dated 17th May 1990 was issued by the Assistant Commissioner raising a demand for the differential duty on the ground that the products should companyrectly be classified under Tariff Item 94.01.
They were called upon to pay duty.
Earlier decisions of CEGAT, holding that such goods fell under Tariff Heading 94.01 were cited.
Tariff Headings 94.01 and 40.08 read as follows 94.01 Seats other than those of heading No.40.01 , whether or number companyvertible into beds, and parts thereof.
The Respondents then filed further Appeals to CEGAT.
175 of 1986 dated 1st March 1986 be number cancelled.
They are thus cushions of seats and are parts of seats.
After giving a personal hearing, the Assistant Commissioner companyfirmed the demand.
It is an admitted position that the Respondents manufactured goods made out of vulcanised rubber, other than hardened rubber, and their goods are cut to the shape of seats of motor vehicles or two wheelers.
N. VARIAVA, J. These Appeals are against the Judgment dated 22nd of January 1999 of the Customs, Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal CEGAT.
Briefly stated the facts are as follows.
