2009 (9) TMI 6 - SC - Central Excise

Supreme Court Upholds Tribunal Decision on Non-Woven Floor Coverings Classification

Commissioner of Central Excise Versus M/s. UNI Products (I) Ltd. & Ors.

The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision in a case concerning the classification of non-woven floor coverings under the Central Excise Tariff Act. ... Floor Covering – classification - non-woven floor coverings where the basic fabric is jute – revenue’s case is that the exposed surface is made of synthetic textile material like polypropylene felt or polypropylene fiber and as such these goods cannot be classified as non-woven jute floor coverings – Held that – tribunal held that, It is seen from the manufacturing process as explained by the learned advocate that the carpet is manufactured in a continuous process and the said carpet is to be considered as of one identity rather than as having separate identity of having a exposed surface and under surface. The tacking of the fibers of polypropylene and jute to be further needle punched into Hessian cloth brings into existence one commodity that is carpet. – Held that - It is well known that the tribunal being the last authority on fact, it is not proper for this Court, in exercise of its power under Section 35 L(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, to disturb such findings of the tribunal since such findings are based on evidence – revenue’s appeal dismissed. Issues involved:Classification of non-woven floor coverings made of jute and synthetic textile material under the Central Excise Tariff Act.Detailed Analysis:1. Classification Dispute: The judgment deals with multiple appeals where the issue revolves around the classification of non-woven floor coverings manufactured by the respondents. The appellant argues that the exposed surface is made of synthetic textile material, such as polypropylene felt or fiber, and hence cannot be classified as non-woven jute floor coverings.2. Technical Opinion: The respondents rely on a technical opinion provided by Prof. P.K. Banerjee, an expert in non-woven textile material. The opinion states that the products manufactured by the respondents do not qualify as floor coverings with piled or looped surfaces.3. Adjudicating Authority's Findings: The Adjudicating Authority, in Order-in-original No.69/89, concluded that the products should be classified under heading 5702.20 as jute predominates in weight over other textile materials like polypropylene. The Authority rejected the Revenue's argument that polypropylene constitutes the exposed surface and should be classified differently.4. Tribunal's Decision: The Tribunal, after considering the manufacturing process and the predominance test, held that classification should be based on the textile material that predominates by weight. It noted that the carpets manufactured by the appellants contain jute contents of 75% to 85%, a fact not disputed by the Revenue.5. Predominance Test: The Tribunal emphasized that the predominance test should be applied to the product as a whole, without excluding the base fabric (Hessian cloth). It rejected the Revenue's reliance on a single dealer's statement without substantiated evidence.6. Judicial Review: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Tribunal's findings based on evidence. It stated that as the tribunal is the final authority on facts, the Court should not interfere with its conclusions under the Central Excise Act.7. Final Decision: The Court dismissed all appeals, including those with similar issues, based on the reasoning discussed in the judgment. No costs were awarded in the matter.In conclusion, the judgment clarifies the classification of non-woven floor coverings based on the predominance of textile materials by weight, emphasizing the holistic assessment of the product in question. The decision underscores the importance of technical opinions and factual evidence in resolving classification disputes under the Central Excise Tariff Act.