2000 (11) TMI 866 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Classification of product as rot-proof jute product for exemption under Notification 53/65-CE, reliance on Chemical Examiner's report, grounds for appeal.

Classification of Product:
The appeal was filed by the Revenue challenging the Commissioner (Appeals) finding that the products in question, bituminous felts, should be considered rot-proof jute products based on the Chemical Examiner's report. The Commissioner found that the products were water-proof/damp-proof and, combined with the Chemical Examiner's report, should be treated as rot-proof. The Revenue argued that the products were only water-proof/damp-proof and did not qualify as rot-proof products under Notification 53/65-CE. The Chemical Examiner stated that rot-proofing is achieved by adding specific chemicals, which were not found in the samples. However, the Chemical Examiner's report did suggest that the treatment of jute fabric with bitumen could have a rot-proof effect. The Tribunal noted that the grounds for appeal were presumptions and lacked evidence to dispute the lower authorities' classification of the products as rot-proof.

Reliance on Chemical Examiner's Report:
The Tribunal highlighted that if there were doubts regarding the Chemical Examiner's report, samples could have been sent for further analysis, which was not done. The report did suggest the possibility of a rot-proofing effect on the jute fabrics due to the treatment with bitumen. The Tribunal found no fault in the lower authorities' reliance on the Chemical Examiner's report, as it indicated a potential rot-proofing effect on the products. The grounds for appeal did not provide substantial reasons or evidence to challenge the lower authorities' classification of the products as rot-proof jute fabrics.

Grounds for Appeal:
The Tribunal rejected the appeal, emphasizing that it was based on presumptions and insufficient grounds. The appeal admitted that the products were used for water-proofing but failed to explain why they should not be considered rot-proof jute fabrics. The lack of clarity on the understanding of "rot-proof jute fabrics" in the trade and how the products differed led the Tribunal to uphold the lower authorities' decision. The Tribunal concluded that the appeal lacked merit and was dismissed accordingly.