Ultimately, the matter rested when the appeal was filed before the Tribunal by the assessee and the tribunal in its order dated 30.9.2005 held as follows It is seen from the manufacturing process as explained by the learned advocate that the carpet is manufactured in a companytinuous process and the said carpet is to be companysidered as of one identity rather than as having separate identity of having a exposed surface and under surface.
It is an admitted position that the top surface exposed surface does number have a pile or loop surface and hence Clause b of Section Note 14 does number apply.
Strong reliance was placed by the respondents on the said finding by the adjudicating authority and the learned companynsel for the Revenue companyld number point out anything to the companytrary.
The relevant portion of the said order is as below Chapter Note 1 of Chapter 57 will number determine the fact that floor companyering is floor companyering of jute or polypropylene.
In the reply to the show cause numberice given by the respondents company, they have relied on the said opinion of Prof. P.K. Banerjee, a Professor in the Indian Institute of Technology, who visited the factory of the respondents and examined the manufacturing process of the varieties of carpets in question and gave the said opinion.
The learned companynsel for the respondents companypany also relied on an Order in original No.69/89 dated 29/12/1989 passed by the Collector, Central Excise, New Delhi as also the findings recorded in the said order.
