9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (11) TMI 405X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able under Sub-heading 3926.90 of the Tariff. Shri B.B. Gujral, learned Advocate, submitted that the appellants manufacture netting of plastic in rolls from the duty paid polyethylene granules; that these nets are of uniform quality and are of general use; that the Assistant Commissioner under Adjudication order No. 87/98 dated 17-6-1998 had classified their products namely shopping bag net, packing net, protective sleeving net, poultry cage floor net, serimount net under Sub-heading 3926.90; that, however, in respect of their remaining two products namely, Machchar Jali and hexagonal net, the Assistant Commissioner classified them under Sub-heading 3925.30 holding them akin to the article mentioned in Sub-heading 3925.30; that on appeal, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tariff Heading is on the Revenue. The learned Advocate contended that the Department has not discharged this onus as no evidence has been brought on record to show that these products are known in the market as Builders Wares. The learned Advocate further submitted that merely because they have named the impugned products as Machchar Jali and Hexagonal Fencing the product does not change its character and reliance was placed on the decision in the case of Bharat Forge and Press Industries (P) Ltd. v. CCE, 1990 (45) E.L.T. 525 (S.C.) and Sandoz India Ltd. v. U.O.I., 1980 (6) E.L.T. 696 (S.C.). 2. Finally the learned Advocate relied upon the decision in the case of Netlon India Ltd. v. CCE, Vadodara, [2000 (121) E.L.T. 675 (Tribunal) = ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the Appellants therein had not cleared the goods in running length and that the Department had also not proved that the product was in the form of Insect Screen for a particular window or door or for specific fencing or similar barriers. In the present matter also the learned Advocate has claimed that they are clearing the netting of plastics in rolls form and not as articles which could be used as Machchar Jali or for fencing. We are, therefore, of the view that the ratio of the decision in the case of Netlon India is squarely applicable to the facts of the present matter and the product will be classifiable under Heading 39.26 only and they could not be treated as Buildersware. We, therefore, allow the appeal filed by the Appellants. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
