9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (8) TMI 456 - AT - Central ExciseClassification of goods - Jute matting - benefit of N/N. 29/95-CE dated 16.03.95 - whether classified under Heading No.5705.00 of the 1st Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 or under Sl.No.1 of the afore-mentioned Notification under Heading Carpets and other textile floor coverings? - Held that - Tribunal s decision in the case of Commr. of Central Excise, Haldia Vs. Gloster Jute Mills Ltd. 2016 (3) TMI 224 - CESTAT KOLKATA , is squarely applicable to the facts of the case, wherein it is held that the jute matting is entitled to the benefit of N/N. 29/95-CE dated 16.03.95 at Sl.No.3 - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Issues involved:
Classification of jute matting under Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Interpretation of Notification No. 29/95-CE dated 16.03.95 regarding floor coverings of jute. Applicability of Tribunal's decision in Commr. of Central Excise, Haldia Vs. Gloster Jute Mills Ltd. Validity of impugned order and demand of Central Excise duty. Applicability of exemption Notification to the manufactured product. Detailed Analysis: The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT KOLKATA revolves around the classification of jute matting under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, and the interpretation of Notification No. 29/95-CE dated 16.03.95 concerning floor coverings of jute. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Kol.VII, dropping the demand of Central Excise duty amounting to ?67,94,729 against the respondent-assessee. The dispute arose from a CERA Audit Objection regarding the classification of the product manufactured by the respondent under different headings, leading to a demand for higher duty under a specific Notification. The respondent-assessee relied on a Tribunal decision in the case of Commr. of Central Excise, Haldia Vs. Gloster Jute Mills Ltd., which supported their claim for the benefit of Notification No. 29/95-CE dated 16.03.95 at Sl.No.3, pertaining to floor coverings of jute. The Revenue, represented by the ld.D.R., contested this claim, arguing that the jute matting was not solely a floor covering of jute but could be used for other purposes, thereby attracting a higher duty rate. The ld.D.R. cited a Supreme Court decision emphasizing that goods must be expressly covered under an exemption Notification to be availed by the manufacturer. Upon considering the submissions and case records, the Tribunal analyzed the issue at hand, focusing on whether jute matting manufactured by the respondents qualified as floor coverings. The Tribunal referred to the relevant Notification table, which outlined different rates for various goods, including floor coverings of jute. Relying on the Tribunal's decision in the Gloster Jute Mills Ltd. case and the specific description of matting as per Fairchild's Dictionary of textile, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and upheld the Order-in-Original passed by the adjudicating authority. The decision highlighted the importance of specific definitions within Notifications and the application of such interpretations solely for the purpose of the respective Notification. In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment clarified the classification of jute matting, the applicability of exemption Notifications, and the significance of specific descriptions in determining the duty rates for manufactured goods under the Central Excise regime.
|
