2007 (11) TMI 60 - AT - Central Excise

Pre-polished cement concrete tiles In appellant s own case, apex court held that impugned goods will be considered as floorings not floor coverings So in present case duty at 20% advalorem in term of Sl. No. 2 of table annexed to Not. 36/94 is payable not at 30% advalorem under Sl. No. 1(c).

Summary

Issues:
Classification of goods under Central Excise Tariff Act - Duty rate applicable for 'pre-polished cement concrete tiles' - Applicability of Notification No.36/94-CE dated 1.3.1994 - Benefit of lower duty rate under Notification 59/90-CE dated 20.3.1990.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, CHENNAI involved the classification of 'pre-polished cement concrete tiles' under Heading 68.07 of the Central Excise Tariff Act and the duty rate applicable. The lower authorities demanded duty of over Rs.9 lakhs from the appellants for the period August 1994 to January 1995. The dispute centered around the interpretation of Notification No.36/94-CE dated 1.3.1994, which prescribed a duty rate of 30% ad valorem for floor coverings in rolls or tiles falling under Heading 68.07. The assessee contended that their goods should be classified as floorings and not floor coverings, thus eligible for a lower duty rate of 20% ad valorem under a different entry in the same Notification.

The Tribunal noted that a similar dispute in the appellant's previous case had been considered by the apex Court, where it was held that the appellant's products were to be classified as "floorings" and not floor coverings. This previous judgment entitled the assessee to pay duty at a lower rate of 15% ad valorem under a different entry in Notification 59/90-CE dated 20.3.1990, excluding floor coverings in rolls or tiles falling under Heading 68.07. The Tribunal found that the decision of the apex Court in the previous case was directly applicable to the present case, leading to a favorable outcome for the appellant.

Consequently, the impugned order demanding duty at 30% ad valorem was set aside by the Tribunal, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellants. The Tribunal also disposed of the stay application in light of its decision. The judgment was pronounced in open court by the members of the Tribunal.