LexCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE versus M/S. UNI PRODUCTS (I) LTD. & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 199 __l COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE A v. M/S. UNI PRODUCTS (I) l TD. & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 3758 of 2006) SEPTEMBER 8, 2009 8 [D.K. JAIN AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.] ... Central Excise and Tariff Act, 1944 - Classification of floor coverings under Heading 5702. 20 or 5702. 90 - Assessee manufacturer of non-woven floor coverings made c of jute - Authorities holding that textile material which predominates in weight would determine the classification of product and since jute predominated in weight over other ...... single textile material-polypropylene, floor covering classifiable as floor covering of jute - However, the D Commissioner demanding duty for a certain period - In appeal, tribunal holding that predominance test of assessee's products to be done taking the product manufactured by it as a whole and not by separating the layers and base fabric- hessian cloth not to be excluded - Interference with - Held: E Not called for since tribunal is the last authority on fact and • its findings is based on evidence . CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3758 of 2006. F From the Judgment & Order dated 30.9.2005 of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in Appeal Nos. E/784, 1358-60/98-NB-Ex. WITH G '¥ C.A. Nos. 4686, 5631, 5845 of 2006 and C.A. No. 5342 of 2007. P.P. Malhotra, ASG, Madhurima Tatia, S.K. Dubey, V. 199 H 200 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A Dalmia, B. Krishna Prasad for the Appellant. ,.. >-- V. Lakshmi Kumaran, Alok Yadav, M.P. Devanath, Rupesh Kumar, Pankhuri Shrivastava for the Respondents. B The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GANGULY, J. 1. This judgment deals with Civil Appeal Nos.3758/2006, 5631/2006, 4686/2006, 5845/2006 and 5342/ 2007. ,>. c 2. It appears that in all these appeals, the respondents are manufacturing non-woven floor coverings where the basic fabric is jute, but the case of the appellant is thatthe exposed surface is made of synthetic textile material like polypropylene felt or polypropylene fiber and as such these goods cannot be D classified as non-woven jute floor coverings. --( 3. In the case of Civil Appeal No.3758 of 2006, the show- cause notice was issued on 5.5.1997 and the case of the Revenue as set out in paragraph No. 6.8 of the show-cause notice is as follows: E " ...... Therefore, it appears that the said textile floor coverings are classifiable as 'other textile floor coverings' -· under sub heading 5703.90 of CETA leviable to duty@ 30% Adv. and not as floor coverings of jute under sub F heading 5703.20 of CETA ...... " 4. The case of the respondents-company as disclosed in the counter affidavit is that it has relied on a technical opinion given by Prof. P.K. Banerjee, who has the experience of research in non-woven textile material and he has given his G opinion of the products manufactured by the respondents- company to the effect that the products which are manufactured by the respondents-company cannot be classified as floor coverings with piled or looped surface. H 5. In the reply to the show-cause notice given by the COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE v. UNI 201 ; ~RODUCTS (I) LTD. [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J_.J ' respondents-company, they have relied on the said opinion of A , -l 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. 6. The Revenue before us also did not dispute the 8 correctness of the said opinion. 7. The learned counsel for the respondents-company 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 c findings recorded in the said order. The relevant portion of the said order is as below: "Chapter-Note (1) of Chapter 57 will not determine the fact -... that floor covering is floor covering of jute or polypropylene. D ,.. The said Chapter Note describes and defines the floor covering. Section Note (4) and (14) has to be necessarily considered for this purpose. It is an admitted position that the top surface (exposed surface) does not have a pile or loop surface and hence Clause (b) of Section Note 14 E does not apply. Hence in terms of Clause (a) to Section >- Note 14 whichever textile material predominates
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.