COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, HYDERABAD-I versus M/S. CHARMINAR NON-WOVENS LTD.

Citation: [2009] 14 S.C.R. 205 · Decided: 08-09-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.K. JAIN · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

t 
-
'y 
[2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 205 
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, HYDERABAD-I 
A 
v. 
M/S. CHARMINAR NON-WOVENS LTD. 
(Civil Appeal No. 3828 of 2007) 
SEPTEMBER 8, 2009 
[D.K. JAIN AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.] 
B 
Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 - s.35L - Interference 
under - Scope - Classification of carpets - Authorities below 
upheld assessee's claim for classification - On appeal, held: C 
Decision rendered by authorities below was based on relevant 
materials/evidence on record as also Section Notes and 
Chapter Notes - Concurrent findings of fact by authorities 
below not patently perverse nor based on manifest 
misreading of any legal provision - Hence, interference by D 
Supreme Court not called for- Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 
- Headings 5703.20 & 5703.90. 
Assessee-respondent is a manufacturer of carpets. 
Show-cause notice was issued to it alleging that it mis-
E 
classified its carpets under Heading 5703.20 as "jute 
carpets" and thereby mis-utilized the benefit of 
Notification No.29195-CE dt. 16-3-95 and 16196-CE dt. 23-
7-1996 by clearing the same at concessional rate of duty. 
The adjudicating authority i.e. the Addi. Commissioner of 
Central Excise came to a finding that in the said carpets, 
F 
there was predominance of jute content by weight and 
accordingly upheld the assessee's claim for classification 
and consequently the show-cause proceedings were 
dropped. The order passed by the adjudicating authority 
was upheld by the appellate authority i.e. the G 
Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal. Hence 
the present appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
205 
H 
206 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
-----
A 
HELD:1.1. When the Revenue took the appeal up to 
)._ 
Tribunal, the Tribunal held that the issue was covered by 
the decision in Champdany Industries Ltd. The appeal filed 
against the same decision rendered in the Champdany 
Industries has been dealt with by this Court in the case in 
B Civil Appeal Nos.7075-7076 of 2005. In that judgment, all 
the issues raised by the Revenue were discussed in 
detail and thereafter, the contentions of the Revenue were 
rejected. following the same parity of reason, contentions 
)... 
of the Revenue, which are identical in this case, are also 
c rejected. [Paras 7 and 8] (209-F-H] 
1.2. Apart from that, in this matter the Revenue's case 
has been constantly rejected at all the three levels, 
namely, in the adjudication order passed by the Addi. 
Commissioner of Central Excise, in the appellate· order 
---,' 
D 
I 
passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and in the 
..._
, 
Tribunal. Such decisions have been rendered on the 
basis of the relevant materials and after analyzing the 
evidence on record as also the provision of Section Notes 
and Chapter Notes. Such concurrent findings by the 
E lower authorities are interfered with by this Court in 
exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 35L of Central 
Excise and Salt Act, 1944 only when such findings are 
~ 
,) 
patently perverse or are based on manifest misreading 
of any legal provision. Here none of these situations is 
F present. [Para 8] [210-A-C] 
Sidharath Pharmaceuticals v. Collector of Central Excise, 
Ahmedabad 2003 (157) ELT 502 (SC) and Auto Control (P) 
Ltd. v. Collector 2006 (199) ELT A.127, relied on. 
G 
Uni Products (I) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise 
2006(200) ELT 278 (Tri.-Delhi) and Commissioner of Central 
ExciseBBSR-1 v. Champdany Industries Limited 2006 (193) 
ELT 295 (Tri.-Kolkata), referred to. 
H 
t. 
' . 
... 
COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, HYDERABAD-I v. 
207 
CHARMINAR NON-WOVENS LTD. 
Case Law Reference: 
2006 (200) ELT 278 (Tri.-Delhi) referred to Para 5 
2006 (193) ELT 295 (Tri.- Kolkata) referred to Para 7 
\ 
A 
I 
2003 (157) ELT 502 (SC) relied on 
' 
Para 9 
8 
2006 (199) ELT A.127 relied on 
Para 10 
CIVIL AP PELLA TE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
3828 of 2007. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 4.1.2007 of the 
C 
Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal 
Bench, Bangalore in Appeal No. -E/938/2006. 
P.P. Malhotra, ASG, Madhurima Tatia, S.K. Dubey, V. 
Dalmia, B. Krishna Prasad for the Appellant. 
D 
S.K. Bagaria, S. Sukumaran, Meera Mathur, Anand 
Sukumar, Rajesh, P.K. Mahapatra for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
GANGULY, J. 1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the 
issue is whether non-woven carpets having exposed surface 
E 
of polypropylene are classifiable under headin
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.