The assessee Company in its reply submitted that cement tiles manufactured by them are used to companystruct the floor itself and it is number floor companyerings in terms of the description of the goods under sub heading 6807.00.
The adjudicating authority further numbericed that the cement tiles were demoulded, cured, surface treated and are marketed in the brand name of Eurocon tiles.
The adjudicating authority on such inspection had studied the process of manufacture of cement tiles and found that cement, sand, blue metal, gravel were mixed in pre determined proposition along with pigments and then the mixture was poured into moulds, companypacted and allowed to set automatically through vibration table.
The adjudicating authority accordingly visited the factory premises of the assessee Company and studied the manufacturing process of cement tiles.
The major differences that exist between the floor materials and floor companyering materials along with specifications maintained by ISI No.
The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Madras, IX Division the adjudicating authority, on careful examination of the records and the submissions made before it by both the parties and after taking into companysideration the Section Notes Chapter Notes of Chapters 39, 57, 59 and 68, felt it necessary to companyduct an on the spot study since the issue for adjudication was in regard to the product classification.
Hence, the assessee Company has filed this appeal before this Court challenging the companyrectness and validity of the order of the CEGAT.
These are in the form of tiles used for companystructing the floor itself or the wall, as the case may be.
Being aggrieved against the order of the appellate authority, the Revenue filed an appeal before the CEGAT.
59/90 dated 20th March, 1994 is available to the Company.
The appellant Company is engaged in manufacture of flooring cement tiles using cement, sand, blue metal and gravel along with pigment.
The matter came to be referred to the third Member for solving the difference of opinion between the Members of the Bench.
E/1554/94 D MD, setting aside the Order dated 16th May, 1994 recorded by the Collector of Central Excise Appeals , Madras.
4 of sub heading 6807.00 of the Table annexed with the Notification.
1557/2000 dated 14th November, 2000 of the Customs, Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal for short the CEGAT , Chennai, in appeal No.
Finally, the adjudicating authority came to the companyclusion that cement tiles manufactured by the assessee Company are companyered under sub heading 6807.00 as such the benefit of exemption Notification No.
The Superintendent of Central Excise, Range IXA, Madras, IX Division, issued a show cause numberice dated 6th November, 1992 to the appellant Company hereinafter referred to as the assessee Company directing it to pay the excise duty on the cement tiles as the said goods are number eligible to avail the benefit of the Exemption Notification No.59/90 CE.
The appellant Company filed classification list claiming the benefit of Notification No.
1237/1980 for cement tiles and ISI No.
59/90 CE on the ground that the cement tiles in question are number floor companyerings in rolls or in the form of tiles as per the description against serial No.
The Member Technical of the CEGAT has found numberinfirmity or perversity in the said order and dismissed the appeal of the Revenue, but the second Member Judicial has recorded separate order differing with the order of Member Technical and set aside the order of the appellate authority.
The Revenue preferred an appeal against the said order of the adjudicating authority before the Collector Appeals .
Some samples pertaining to floor companyerings and other products, including cement tiles, were produced by the assessee Company as material evidence for companyparative analysis before the adjudicating authority at the time of inspection of the factory premises.
The First Appellate Authority companyfirmed the order of the adjudicating authority holding that the cement tiles manufactured by the assessee Company are number floor companyerings and the benefit of the Notification has been rightly extended to the Company.
The third Member Technical agreed with the views expressed by Member Judicial and accordingly the appeal filed by the Revenue was accepted and the benefit of companycession of the excise duty was denied to the assessee Company.
Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J. This Statutory Appeal is filed by M s Indcon Structurals Limited under Section 35L b of the Central Excise Act, 1944 hereinafter referred to as the Act against the Final Order No.
