https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325040 Jute mattings were held capable of falling within the ordinary meaning of "floor coverings of jute" under Notification No. 29/95-CE, because the notification did not define matting, did not require exclusive floor use, and did not exclude such goods from the specific entry. On that construction, the concessional rate under the specific jute floor-covering entry applied and the Revenue's classification challenge failed. The extended period of limitation was also unavailable because the assessee had disclosed the goods and claimed the concession in the classification list, which was approved by the department, leaving no basis for wilful suppression or misstatement. The demand was therefore unsustainable. en-us Mon, 05 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 12 Nov 2016 10:54:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325040 Jute mattings were held capable of falling within the ordinary meaning of "floor coverings of jute" under Notification No. 29/95-CE, because the notification did not define matting, did not require exclusive floor use, and did not exclude such goods from the specific entry. On that construction, the concessional rate under the specific jute floor-covering entry applied and the Revenue's classification challenge failed. The extended period of limitation was also unavailable because the assessee had disclosed the goods and claimed the concession in the classification list, which was approved by the department, leaving no basis for wilful suppression or misstatement. The demand was therefore unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 05 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325040