Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cce, Ludhiana vs M/S. Maan Non Woven P. Ltd on 26 September, 2016
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SCO 147-148, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH-160017 DIVISION BENCH COURT NO.1 Appeal No. E/2202 /2007-Ex(DB) [Arising out of the OIA No.12-22/CE/Appl/LDH/2007 dt.23.3.2007 passed by the CCE (Appeals), Ludhiana) Date of Hearing/Decision: 26.09.2016 For Approval & signature: Honble Mr.Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr.Devender Singh, Member (Technical) 1. Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 2. Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? No 3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order? seen 4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities? Yes CCE, Ludhiana Appellant Vs. M/s. Maan Non Woven P. Ltd. Respondent
Appearance Shri G.M.Sharma, AR for the appellant None for the respondent CORAM:Honble Mr.Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr.Devender Singh, Member (Technical) FINAL ORDER NO. 61459/2016 PER: ASHOK JINDAL The Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order.
2. The facts of the case are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of carpet in the Tariff Nomenclature as Others Carpets and other floor coverings, whether or not made up others falling under sub heading 5703.90 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The carpets manufactured by the respondents are made of jute base, polypropylene and adhesive. During the period from May, 1999 to July, 2004, the respondent cleared carpets and its waste classifying under sub heading 5703.20 at nil rate of duty. The respondents were earlier classifying the carpets under sub heading 5703.90 attracting duty @ 16% ad valorem. The demand was confirmed against the respondent for the impugned period i.e. May, 1999 to July, 2004 classifying their products under sub heading 5703.90 in view of the sub heading note 2(B) (ii) of Sextion XI of the Central Excise Act, 1985 reads as follows:
In the case of textile products consisting of a ground fabric and a pile or looped surface no account shall be taken of the ground fabrics. The said order was challenged before the Commissioner (Appeals) who after examining the issue held that the impugned goods are jutes carpet classifying the same under sub heading 5703.20. Aggrieved with the said order, the Revenue is in appeal before us.
3. Learned AR submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Uni Products (India) Ltd.-2006 (72) RLT 755. The facts of this case are not applicable to the facts of the present case as in the case of Uni Products (India) Ltd. there is a tacking of jute and polypropylene fibres together first and then needle punching. In this case, the tope surface of the said carpet is made of a mixture of polypropylene fibre and jute fibre. He further submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) has concluded that under sub heading 5703.90 note 2(B) (ii) of Section XI of the Central Excise Act, 1985 specified that In the case of textile products consisting of a ground fabric and a pile or looped surface no account shall be taken of the ground fabrics. That is not the case here. Therefore, the impugned order is to be set aside.
4. None appeared for the respondents nor is there any request for adjournment has been received. The matter has been taken for final disposal on its own merits.
5. We have seen that in the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has examined the issue in details and has observed as under:
I have carefully considered the facts on record, brief submitted by the appellants and submissions made at the time of personal hearing. It has been pleaded by the appellants that all the 11 show cause notices have been issued on the sole ground of sub heading note 2(B) (ii) of section XI of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They had submitted their manufacturing process with their first reply to SCN on 12.11.1999, explaining that no pile or looped surface is formed in the appellants product and as such sub heading note 2 (B) (ii) was not applicable to the facts of the case. The sub heading note 2 (B) (ii) of Section XI of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, specifies that in the case of textile products consisting of a ground fabric and a pile or looped surface, no account shall be taken of the ground fabrics.
6. We have gone through the sub heading sub heading 5703.90 note 2(B) (ii) of Section XI of the Central Excise Act, 1985 wherein the textile products consisting of a ground fabric and a pile or looped surface no account shall be taken of the ground fabrics in the description of the goods or in the process of manufacture. We find that the goods in question consisting of a ground fabric and a pile or looped surface which is essential condition to specify the product in the sub heading note 2(B) of Section XI of the Central Excise Act, 1985. In the absence of such evidence sub heading note 2 (B) Section XI of the Central Excise Act, 1985 is not applicable to the facts of this case. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order, the same is upheld and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
(dictated and pronounced in the open court)
(Devender Singh) (Ashok Jindal)
Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)
mk
1
Appeal No.E/2202/2007
CCE, Ludhiana vs. Maan Non Woven P.Ltd.