Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Kohinoor Proofing Industries vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 20 July, 2006
Equivalent citations: 2006(111)ECC411, 2006ECR411(TRI.-MUMBAI), 2006(203)ELT414(TRI-MUMBAI)
ORDER
Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President
1. The issue in this appeal is the classification of tarpaulin manufactured by the appellants herein - whether under Chapter Heading 52.06 of the schedule to the CETA, 1985 as claimed by the manufacturers, or under Chapter Heading 59.06 as contended by the Revenue.
2. None appears for the appellants in spite of notice; hence we heard learned SDR and perused the records.
3. We find that the issue of classification had been agitated by the appellants before the Tribunal which, vide its order No. 961/99-D dated 16.9.1999, remanded the case to the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) for de novo consideration. In the present impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has relied upon the test report of the goods stating clearly that the base cotton fabric is heavily impregnated and that the impregnation can be seen with the naked eye and thereafter applied Note 5(a) to Chapter 59 to hold that since the impregnation can be seen by the naked eye, the layer formation is visible, and therefore, the product falls for classification under CET sub-heading 5906.90. The appellants, however, rely upon the Tribunal's order No. 980/99-D dated 10.9.1999 in the case of CCE, Aurangabad v. Ratan Tarpaulin Water Proof Industries to support their claim for classification under Chapter Heading 52.06. However, as rightly pointed out by the learned SDR, the goods in that case were different in the sense that the layer formation was not visible, while in the present case the impregnation is seen with the naked eye and the layer formation is visible. This makes all the difference for the purpose of classification between Chapter Heading 52.06 and 59.06. In the light of the test report and the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) who has himself seen the sample of the product during personal hearing, we find no infirmity in the classification of the disputed product under CET subheading 5906.90, and accordingly uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal.