Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.22 seconds)
Collector Of Central Excise vs United Felt And Carpet on 28 May, 1999 cites

United Felt Carpets vs Collector Of Central Excise on 6 January, 1995

6. Learned Counsel, Shri Sridharan submitted on behalf of the respondents that the order of the Tribunal in United Felts and Carpets case, 1996 (81) E.L.T. 609 (T) was passed in a different context when the manufacturing processes undertaken by the respondents included a stage where Polypropylene fibre emerged as a densely punched web prior to punching the web with jute fabric. He submitted that the Tribunal took note of the fact that felt included needle loom felt and fabrics consisting of a web of textile fibres the cohesion of which has been enhanced by a stitch-bonding process using fibres from the web itself and that after dry punch the product becomes a finished product and that there was no stipulation in the HSN Notes that both ends should be covered by fibre to treat the item as felt. He submitted that in the instant case as the densely punched web does not emerge on account of change in manufacturing process, the decision is distinguishable on account of this reason. During the period covered by the impugned order, loosely punched web of Polypropylene fibre was directly punched with jute fabric backing bringing into existence semi-finished floor covering. He submitted that the Collector has correctly held that the item is not needle loom felt and he referred to the definition of needle loom felt in HSN Explanatory Notes which states that "needle loom felt is made either by punching a sheet or web of fibres without a textile fabric base textile, with notched needles or by needling such textile fibres through a base of textile fabric or other material which is finally more or less hidden by the fibres." He submitted that in the instant case the textile fabric (jute) is given as backing for the fibres. However, there is no needling of the textile fibres through the base of textile fabric so as to make the textile fabric more or less hidden by the fibres. In the instant case, the textile fibre (jute) remained clearly visible and the staple fibres were only on one side of the textile (jute) fabric. He submitted that such an item where the textile fabric is fully visible, and not more or less hidden by fibres, cannot be called needle loom felt. He produced during hearing both the type of samples to bring out the difference. Shri Sridharan also submitted that the CEGAT order in United Felts and Carpets, 1996 (81) E.L.T. 609 was passed without this vital difference being brought to its notice. He also submitted that a commonly recognised and traded item like felt should be classified depending upon the commercial understanding and not technical understanding. The Collector (Appeals) had with reference to the marketability noted that the Department had produced no evidence to show that the goods were marketable, while the respondents had produced evidence both of technical authorities and trade that the item in the stage at which it was cleared was not recognised as felt.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 5 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1