Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 1998 (12) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

1998 (12) TMI 202 - AT - Central Excise

Issues involved: Classification of the product described as Bituminised Hessian based Felt under Heading No. 68.07 versus Heading No. 5909.00 of the Central Excise Tariff.

Summary:
The appeal pertained to the classification of a product termed Bituminised Hessian based Felt, initially classified under Heading No. 68.07 by the adjudicating authority, later confirmed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) as correctly classifiable under Heading No. 5909.00.

Upon hearing arguments from both sides, the Revenue contended that the goods were essentially an article of Bituminous materials, citing Chapter Note (C) of Chapter 68 which excludes certain textile fabrics from Chapter 68. However, the Tribunal noted that the description provided did not align Bitumen with the materials specified under Heading No. 68.07.

The Tribunal observed that Heading No. 68.07 covered articles of specific materials such as stone, plaster, cement, asbestos, and mica, and deemed Bitumen dissimilar to these materials based on the description presented by the Revenue.

The appellate authority, in contrast, classified the goods under sub-heading No. 5909.00 of the Central Excise Tariff, pertaining to other textile products and articles suitable for industrial use. Reference was made to I.S.I. Specification No. IS-1322-1982 and a prior Order-in-Appeal for support.

After reviewing the product details and the reasoning of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), the Tribunal found no grounds to deviate from the classification upheld by the appellate authority.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue, citing a lack of merit in the arguments presented.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates