2004 (8) TMI 562 - AT - Central Excise

Classification of 'Agglomerated Marble' for Mosaic Tiles: Appellate Tribunal rules in favor of appellant

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi, ruled in favor of the appellant in a case concerning the classification of 'Agglomerated Marble' under the ... Marble - Agglomerated marble Issues:1. Classification of 'Agglomerated Marble' under Central Excise Tariff.2. Entitlement of the appellant to the benefit of Notification No. 59/90-C.E. for Mosaic Tiles.Classification Issue Analysis:The Tribunal initially classified 'Agglomerated Marble' under Heading 60.70 of the Central Excise Tariff, relying on a previous decision involving Kedia Agglomerated Marbles Ltd. The appellant challenged this classification, leading to a writ petition in the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan. The High Court, considering a Supreme Court decision related to Kedia Agglomerated Marbles Ltd., set aside the Tribunal's order and remanded the matter to decide the appellant's exemption claim. Eventually, the Tribunal found that the process of manufacture by Kedia Agglomerated Marbles was similar to the appellant's product, leading to a classification in favor of the appellant. This decision was influenced by the Supreme Court's ruling in the Kedia Agglomerated Marbles case, granting the benefit of Notification No. 59/90-C.E. to the appellant.Entitlement to Notification No. 59/90-C.E. Issue Analysis:The appellant contended that they were entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 59/90-C.E., which provides a Nil rate of duty to Mosaic Tiles falling under Heading 6807.00. They argued that the product in question, similar to that of Kedia Agglomerated Marbles Ltd., should be considered as Mosaic Tiles based on a Supreme Court decision. The Revenue, however, disputed this claim, asserting that the product in question differed from that of Kedia Agglomerated Marbles Ltd. The Tribunal, after evaluating the similarity in the manufacturing process between the two products and considering the Supreme Court's decision in the Kedia Agglomerated Marbles case, ruled in favor of the appellant. The Tribunal found that the product in question was the same as that of Kedia Agglomerated Marbles Ltd., entitling the appellant to the benefit of Notification No. 59/90-C.E. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeals were allowed in favor of the appellant.This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi highlights the key issues of classification and entitlement to a specific notification, providing a comprehensive understanding of the legal reasoning and decisions involved in the case.