9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 927X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ff Heading 6807.10. Held that:- No material found from Revenue to show as to whether the goods of respondent were technically tested by any recognized laboratory or national institute to hold that the goods were ceramic. Accordingly, it is safe to relyon the finding of the Tribunal made in the aforesaid decision for application thereof to the case of the assessee since its goods are similar to that of M/s. Shon Ceramics not opposed by Revenue. Tribunal having examined very carefully the composition of the cubes which are ultimately pasted on kraft paper to give raise to the goods in question, both the decisions of the Tribunal when appealed by Revenue before the Apex Court, those were dismissed as reported in [1997 (9) TMI 608 - SUPREME ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r more of these materials, have been used; all other articles of stone, plaster, cement, asbestos, mica or of similar materials, not elsewhere specified or included 6807.10 Goods, in which more than 25% by weight of red mud, press mud or blast furnace slag or one or more of these materials, have been used Nil 2. While the claim of assessee is under Chapter 68 as above, the competing entry of Chapter 69 and Tariff heading6905 claimed by Revenue reads as under:- Heading No. Sub-heading No. Description of the goods Rate of duty (1) (2) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AIC CUBES AND THE LIKE, WHETHER OR NOT ON A BACKING. 6907.10 - Tiles, cubes and similar articles, whether or not rectangular, the largest surface area of which is capable of being enclosed in a square the side of which is less than 7 cm 5. Respondent contended that Tribunal was aware about the very character of goods of respondent since it has dealt the case of Shon Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. So also Tribunal is aware how the goods of respondent is sold in the market. It has sold the goods as mosaic tiles only. Tribunal in para 3 of the decision in CCE Vs. Shon Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. - 1996 (84) ELT 502hasrecorded the argument on classification issue. In para 7 of the decision it is recorded as under: - 7.Regarding Chapter Note 2 he submits t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red to by the Asstt. Collector does not state that the firing is done after the shaping. In other words, Collector (Appeals) had before him the necessary evidence relied by the Assistant Collector and came to the conclusion that the flow chart did not indicate what Assistant Collector concluded. If Revenue now seeks to dislodge this finding of the fact they ought to have produced adequate evidence for this since it was a Revenue Appeal. As it is the Revenue have not produced even the flow chart on which the Assistant Collector relied. [Emphasis supplied] 6. Tribunal has rightly interpreted the meaning of the term 'ceramic' used in Chapter 68 and 69 on the context of HSN Note in para 7 of its decision. That is exactly the good ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amic products. Therefore,it is considered proper to reproduce para 9 of the decision which reads as under:- 9. Since these mosaic tiles can be classified under Chapters 68 and 69 we have to see in the circumstances of the case which is the proper chapter which would cover it. The products are made of 80% of the various stones, such as Quarts, silica and Feldspar chips and 20% or less clay material for binding purpose. Chapter 69 and the Note 2 applies only to ceramic products which have been fired after shaping. Assistant Collector has made the following observations: In the process of manufacture i.e. the flow chart of their products, the said shon ceramics, have of their own along with their letter No. SC/CEX/AC/6-3/86, dated 2-6- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... low chart does not state firing is done after shaping, we accept this finding as correct. In absence therefore, of any evidence to contest the finding arrived at by the Collector (Appeals) we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order-in-Appeal. In the result, the Revenue Appeal is rejected and the impugned order is upheld. [Emphasis supplied] 8. Ultimately Tribunal found that in absence of evidence toshow that the goods were not ceramic goods, the goods shall fall under Chapter 68 instead of 69. 9. Even today we do not find any material from Revenue to show as to whether the goods of respondent were technically tested by any recognized laboratory or national institute to hold that the goods were ceramic. According ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
