The Revenues case is that such companycessional rate of duty is available only for jute exposed surface floor companyerings and, therefore, there has been companytravention of Rule 9 1 , 52 A, 173 B, 173 F and 173 G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
The case of the respondent is that it is manufacturer of blankets, carpets and floor companyerings falling under Chapter 63 and 57 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 hereinafter the said Act and its products known as Charms Jute Floor Coverings, is classifiable under chapter sub heading No.
5705.00 before 26.7.1996 and then under chapter sub heading No.
It is number in dispute that the period which is involved in this case is between April, 1996 to October, 1996.
In the companyrse of hearing of the appeal, the appellate authority numbered why the adjudication authority decided that the classification of the product in question should be under sub heading 5703.20.
Therefore, the adjudicating authority followed the decision of CESTAT in the case of Uni Products I Ltd. Vs.
After such detailed discussion, the companytentions of the Revenue have been rejected.
When the Revenue further took the appeal up to Tribunal, the Tribunal referred to its decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, BBSR I Vs.
Rather the chemical examiners report dated 28.08.1991 clearly states the predominance of jute by weight in the product.
The aforesaid findings were arrived at after examining a piece of the sample of floor companyerings which were produced in the companyrse of hearing.
The adjudication authority also came to a finding that the surface of the goods manufactured by the assessee is neither piled number looped with ground fabric, rather the goods are manufactured by needle punching process.
Against the said order, an appeal was filed by the Revenue and the said appeal came to be decided by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise Appeals , Hyderabad.
The adjudicating authority also came to a finding that in the goods manufactured by the assessee, predominance of jute companytent by weight has number been disputed in the show cause numberice.
After the said order, numberobjection was raised by the Revenue and the assessee companytinued to discharge its obligation of duty liability in terms of the said order.
Commissioner of Central Excise 2006 200 ELT 278 Tri.
With the said finding, the appellate authority rejected the appeal of the Revenue.
Kolkata , and held that the issue is companyered by the decision in Champdany Industries supra .
The appeal filed against the same decision rendered in the Champdany Industries supra has been dealt with by this Court in the case in Civil Appeal Nos.7075 7076 of 2005.
The show cause numberice was issued by the Revenue against the respondent on 6.11.1996 alleging the respondents a case of mis classification of carpets under heading 5703.20 and thereby mis utilization of the benefit of Notification No.29/95 CE dated 16.3.95 and 16/96 CE dated 23.7.1996 and thus clearing the goods at companycessional rate of duty of 5.
The appellate authority also numbered that the said carpet was physically examined by the adjudicating authority, and after doing so, the adjudicating authority came to a finding that floor companyering was neither piled number looped, rather the goods were manufactured by needle punching process.
In that judgment, all the issues raised by the Revenue have been discussed in detail.
In passing the said adjudication order, the adjudicating authority returned several findings to the effect that in the past the issue involved in this case was decided in favour of the assessee by Collector of Central Excise Appeals vide its order dated 16.07.1993.
Champdany Industries Limited 2006 ELT 295 Tri.
5703.20.
The respondent companytested the aforesaid show cause proceedings and therein an adjudication order dated 29.11.2004 was passed.
Commissioner of Central Excise, in the appellate order passed by the Commissioner Appeals and in the Tribunal.
Delhi , and held that the process of manufacture of number woven carpets which is followed in the case in hand is exactly the same which was followed in the case of Uni Products supra and accordingly the show cause proceedings were dropped against the assessee by an order dated 29.11.2004.
GANGULY, J. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the issue is whether number woven carpets having exposed surface of polypropylene are classifiable under heading 5703.20 as jute carpet to justify companycessional rate of duty or whether the said number woven carpets are classifiable under heading 5703.90 as other carpets.
