2002 (7) TMI 659

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....98 respectively passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents-assessees were engaged in the manufacture of roofing felt falling under chapter 59. The classifications lists were filed periodically and the same were approved. Similar approval was granted to other units M/s. STP Ltd., and M/s. Lloyd Bitumen Products. In those cases, the Commissioner (Appeals) by his order dated 26-4-98 held that roofing felt would fall under chapter heading 5906.90 and would be eligible to claim exemption under Notification No. 53/95 dated 20-3-95. In the present case, the department drew samples and sent it for chemical test. The test report dated 5-2-88 noted the percentage of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....-Appeal No. 5/95 (M) (D), dated 20-2-95 referred to by the Commissioner was appealed by the Revenue before this Bench and this Bench by Final Order No. 1597/2000, dated 17-11-2000 rejected the revenue's appeal as in the case of CCE Chennai v. Industrial 'H' Packers, reported in 2001 (137) E.L.T. 914. A copy of the order was furnished and the Counsel submitted that as the Tribunal has already upheld the impugned order, therefore these two Revenue's appeals are also required to be rejected. Ld. Counsel has also produced a copy of the order rendered in the case of CCE Calcutta v. Bitumen Products (India), 1999 (107) E.L.T. 58 (T) wherein the Tribunal held that 'Bituminised Hessian based felt' is classifiable under tariff sub-heading 5909.00 of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....p;   The grounds in appeal are admitting that the products are used for water proofing the roof or foundations and are therefore water proofing jute products, but it does not give any reason or material evidence as to what is the understanding of 'rot proof jute fabrics' in the person's dealing with the product and how this product impugned before us is not understood as 'rot-proofing jute fabrics'. Therefore, we find that no grounds have been made out in the appeal before us to find any infirmity in the order of the lower authorities who have unanimously held to be 'rot proof'. 5.        In view of our findings herein above, we reject this appeal being made on presumptions and insufficient gr....