Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Tvs Srichakra Ltd vs Cce, Madurai on 11 May, 2010
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI
E/497/2004 and E/561/2004
(Arising out of Order in Appeal No. 36/04 dated 14.01.2004, passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, (Appeals), Madurai).
For approval and signature
Honble Ms. JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, Vice President
Honble Dr. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY, Technical Member
_________________________________________________________
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the :
order for Publication as per Rule 27 of the
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the :
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication
in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether the Honble Member wishes to see the fair :
copy of the Order.
4. Whether order is to be circulated to the :
Departmental Authorities? _________________________________________________________
M/s. TVS Srichakra Ltd. Appellants/Respondents
Vs. CCE, Madurai Respondents/Appellants Appearance Shri Muthu Venkataraman, Adv., Shri M.N. Bharathi, Adv., for the appellant/respondent Shri V.V. Hariharan, JCDR, for the respondent/appellant CORAM Ms. JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, Vice President Dr. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY, Technical Member Date of hearing : 11.05.2010 Date of decision : 11.05.2010 Final ORDER No._____________ Per: Jyoti Balasundaram Both appeals arise out of the common impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and hence taken up together for disposal.
2. The issue in dispute is the classification of waste of rubberized tyre cord warp sheet of high tenacity yarn manufactured by the assessees herein, who claims the classification under Chapter Heading 59.06 while the Revenue has classified the goods under Chapter Heading 59.02 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Revenue has come up in appeal against setting aside of the demand by the Commissioner (A) on the ground that the process of calendaring dipped warp sheet with rubber compound does not amount to manufacture.
3. Heard both sides. As regards classification, we find that the issue stands settled in favour of the assessees by the Tribunal as seen from 2009 (243) ELT 306 (Tri.-Chen.), accepting that the goods in question falls for classification under Heading 59.06 and not under Heading 59.02, in the light of the Larger Bench decision in CCE, Bangalore Vs. Vikram Tyres Ltd. 2005 (179) ELT 542 and the decision of the apex Court in CCE, Goa Vs. M.R.F. Ltd 2005 (180) ELT 145 (S.C.). We, therefore, allow the appeal No. E/497/04.
4. The Revenues appeal is dismissed also in the light of the earlier order by which the earlier appeal of the Revenue was dismissed. In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed while the appeal of the Revenue is rejected.
(Order dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
(Dr. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY) (JYOTI BALASUNDARAM)
TECHNICAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT
BB
3