TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (9) TMI 15
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llants are liable to be classified as 'Jute carpets' under Chapter sub-heading No. 5703.20 only He submits that the manufacturing process involves the tacking of fibres of jute and Polypropylene together and then Needle punching the same to a Hessian cloth in a single processing, with polypropylene at the top layer. He takes us through the Chapter Note No. 1 of the Chapter 57, and according to him this Chapter note is for the purpose of the classification of the Carpets in the Chapter 57, based upon the exposed surface being of some textile material, and once the carpets are classified under Chapter 57, this Chapter note is not attracted for sub-heading level classification. For this proposition he relies upon the Tribunal's decision in the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the appellants would be correctly covered under sub-heading No. 5703.90. He submits that the carpets as manufactured by the appellants would be known in the market as Polypropylene carpet as the exposed surface of the carpet is made up of said textile materials. He also further submits that the carpets manufactured by the appellants were not known in the market as Jute carpet. He also relies upon technical literature on carpets' which would make it amply clear that the carpet is known in the market by its exposed surface. He states that the commercial parlance theory is applicable in this case. He also further submits that the Chapter Note No. 1 of the Chapter 57 is also applicable for the purposes of sub-heading level classification, and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nbsp; 5% 5703.90 - Other &nbs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....acturing 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 fibres of polypropylene and jute, to be further needle punched into Hessian cloth brings into existence one commodity that is Carpet. That Chapter Note No. 1 of Chapter 57 is relevant only for the classification of products in that Chapter 57 remained settled by this Tribunal's decision in the case of Champadany Industries Ltd, case (supra). We have to now revert to the section notes and sub-heading notes to section XI of the CETA 1985 which are reproduced below "2.(A) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....edominance test or not. We are of the opinion that the Sub heading notes as reproduced above specifically indicates the situations when to include the base fabric and when not to include the base fabrics for the predominance test. Since Section Note to Section XI clearly laid down [(ii) of 3 on the last page] when to exclude and when to include the base fabric while determining the predominance test, it would not be permissible to exclude base fabric (Hessian cloth) in the appellants case, while determining predominance. Hence the predominance, test " appellant's products has to be done taking the product manufactured by the appellants as a whole and not separating the layers and then applying the predominance test. We would also note that ....