9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (7) TMI 659X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ai. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents-assessees were engaged in the manufacture of roofing felt falling under chapter 59. The classifications lists were filed periodically and the same were approved. Similar approval was granted to other units M/s. STP Ltd., and M/s. Lloyd Bitumen Products. In those cases, the Commissioner (Appeals) by his order dated 26-4-98 held that roofing felt would fall under chapter heading 5906.90 and would be eligible to claim exemption under Notification No. 53/95 dated 20-3-95. In the present case, the department drew samples and sent it for chemical test. The test report dated 5-2-88 noted the percentage of bitumen as 66.3%, mica 29% and jute fabric 4.7% and that it was not rot proof, fir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enue before this Bench and this Bench by Final Order No. 1597/2000, dated 17-11-2000 rejected the revenue s appeal as in the case of CCE Chennai v. Industrial H Packers, reported in 2001 (137) E.L.T. 914. A copy of the order was furnished and the Counsel submitted that as the Tribunal has already upheld the impugned order, therefore these two Revenue s appeals are also required to be rejected. Ld. Counsel has also produced a copy of the order rendered in the case of CCE Calcutta v. Bitumen Products (India), 1999 (107) E.L.T. 58 (T) wherein the Tribunal held that Bituminised Hessian based felt is classifiable under tariff sub-heading 5909.00 of the Central Excise Tariff and will be excluded by chapter note (C) of chapter 68 which clearly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not give any reason or material evidence as to what is the understanding of rot proof jute fabrics in the person s dealing with the product and how this product impugned before us is not understood as rot-proofing jute fabrics . Therefore, we find that no grounds have been made out in the appeal before us to find any infirmity in the order of the lower authorities who have unanimously held to be rot proof . 5. In view of our findings herein above, we reject this appeal being made on presumptions and insufficient grounds. Ordered accordingly. 6. The Tribunal also noted the grounds raised therein, which are identical in the present case and in view of Tribunal s finding on this issue, we find that the issue has already been d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
