2006 (11) TMI 436 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal confirms duty demand on man-made fiber for jute floor coverings

The Tribunal upheld the order confirming duty demand on a non-woven fabric/sheet of man-made fiber used in manufacturing jute backed floor coverings. The ... Demand - Marketability Issues involved:Excisability of the intermediate product - marketability of non-woven fabric/sheet of man-made fibre arising in the course of manufacture of jute backed floor coverings.Detailed Analysis:1. The appeal challenged the order confirming a duty demand raised under 14 show cause notices for a specific period, except for the 15th notice. The issue revolved around the excisability of the intermediate product, a non-woven fabric/sheet of man-made fibre, used in manufacturing jute backed floor coverings. The Revenue claimed the product was marketable under CET sub-heading 5603.00, while the appellants argued it lacked marketability due to a lack of dimensional stability.2. The final products, jute backed floor coverings, were manufactured by combining a non-woven felt of man-made fabrics with jute fabrics, cleared at nil rate of duty. The manufacturing process involved various steps, including feeding polypropylene fibre and jute through different machines to create the final product. The appellants contended that the disputed product lacked dimensional stability, but the Revenue argued that a similar product was marketed by the assessee.3. The Tribunal noted that the disputed product was a non-woven jute sheet not subjected to curing, leading to a lack of elasticity. The department established that the product was marketable, shifting the burden to the assessee to prove its distinguishability from products cleared on payment of duty. The appellants failed to provide substantial differences, and the process flowchart did not show any curing process up to the stage where duty liability arose.4. The Tribunal held that the disputed product was marketable and excisable under CET sub-heading 5603.00, a classification undisputed by the assessee, who solely contested the excisability. Previous Tribunal decisions cited by the appellants did not support their claim of non-marketability, as those cases involved different circumstances where marketability was either not contested by the department or not established.5. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order, rejecting the appeal and affirming the excisability of the intermediate product in question. The decision was based on the product's marketability and classification under the relevant sub-heading, concluding that the burden of proof regarding distinguishability was not met by the appellants.This detailed analysis provides a comprehensive overview of the issues involved in the legal judgment, focusing on the excisability and marketability of the intermediate product in question.