Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2016 (11) TMI 310

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Jain, Advocate, for appellant Shri H.M. Dixit, Asst. Commr (AR), for respondent Per: M.V. Ravindran This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. BR/242/Th-II/05 dated 27.09.2005. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of mosaic chequered tile, terrarock / terrastore tiles, paver blocks etc. falling under Chapter Heading No. 68.07 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and were claiming exemption from payment of duty under Notification No.10/2003 dated 01.02.2003. During investigation by Central Excise officers, the dept. took objection against the appellants availing exemption under Notification No. 10/2003 dated 01.02.2003 on these tiles, prima facie on the ground that the same are not c .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tio as contained in paragraph numbers 9, 10 and 11. "9. We find that on the basis of the above report the Commissioner has come to the conclusion that the impugned goods do not contain stone chips and therefore they cannot be considered as mosaic tiles. We find when such a decision is taken by the Commissioner, the question also should have been whether there is the presence of chips or not. When such a question is not asked and when there is no definite answer to it, based on the report, the Commissioner cannot come to the conclusion that they had not used the stone chips. Further, the Commissioners conclusion is also based on the investigation, which according to him revealed that except for a short period, the appellants never purchase .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 'mosaic' does not disentitle the tiles from duty exemption. 3. that there is a difference between ordinary mosaic tiles made without marble chips and stones and stone mosaic tiles made without stone chips. 4. The meaning assigned to the goods by persons using or trading in the goods is relevant. 10. The appellant had also produced the opinion of an expert architect, which has not been considered by the ld. Commissioner, According to the architect, the products manufactured by the appellants will come under the category of mosaic tiles. The report of the architect is reproduced below : "Sir, I have gone through your letter describing the process of manufacture and listing out the raw materials used in the manufacture of your tiles. I have .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rmally the mosaic tiles are used in the interior places in the buildings and not outside. In any case, on going through the various decisions submitted by the ld. Advocate, we find that similar products have been considered as mosaic tiles and benefits have been given the benefit of exemption notification. For examples, in the case of M/s. Basant Flooring Pvt. Ltd., the impugned items were similar to the paving tiles, which are interlocking pavers. Revenue proceeded against the appellant and then it was decided to drop the proceedings and this has not been appealed against by the Revenue. In the case of M/s. Golden India Tiles Company Ltd., the goods were described as Terrazo tiles,. In this case also, the proceedings were dropped. In the N .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tted by the ld. Advocate, we are of the view that these orders are based on the fact that the impugned items which are similar to the items in the present appeal are known as commercially known as mosaic tiles. In these circumstances, we do not find any merit in this impugned order. Further, the longer period has been invoked. We do not find adequate justification for invocation of the longer period because during a particular period there was no exemption Notification and the appellants had registered themselves with the Central Excise authorities. They had intimated the manufacturing process. In fact, it was the period from 1-3-2002 to 28-2-2003. Therefore it cannot be said that the department was not aware of the activities. The show cau .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates