9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (10) TMI 513X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der of the High Court and the appellants have filed necessary papers seeking for change of the cause title. 2. We have considered the request made and allow the application. The cause title shall be in the name of M/s. Carborundum Universal Ltd. 3. The issue in the first two appeals viz. E/1790/98 and E/l791/98 relates to the demands raised by the department on the plea that an intermediate product arises during the manufacture of final product namely coated abrasives falling under Chapter Heading 6802.00 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. The appellants process the cotton fabrics by applying glue and amylaceous substances. The department has considered this process as to be the process of manufacture and have considered the intermedia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant s own case has clearly laid down that coated fabrics does not arise in the process of application of gum and amylaceous substances for classification under Chapter Heading 59.01 in the cited judgment. The finding recorded in Para 4 of the said judgment is reproduced herein below :- 4. We have considered the submissions made by both sides. We have also gone through the processed undertaken by the appellants as given in the impugned order. The Commissioner (Appeals) has nowhere held that the impugned product would be covered under Heading 59.01 as a similar stiffened textile fabrics and there is no counter appeal or cross-objections by the Revenue to treat the cloth as similar abrasive textile fabric. We also observe that even the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o initiated for recovery of Cess under the Textile Committee Act, 1963 in terms of Section 5A of the said Act. Appellants had taken the same stand that coated fabric does not arise in the process of manufacture of coated abrasives and they are not liable to pay Cess under the said Act and the assessee s plea was accepted by the AC holding that Cess is not leviable under the Textile Committee Act, 1963. Revenue was aggrieved with the said order and filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) for setting aside the Order-in-Original and for confirming the demands on Cess to be levied under the Textile Committee Act, 1963. The appellants took the plea that Cess is not leviable as the product is not the product of Textile Industry. How ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
