2023 (6) TMI 190

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....89 to July 1991. 2. They filed classification list classifying the said goods under the sub-heading 5909 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Later, on the advice of the Department they have filed another classification list classifying the said goods under Chapter Heading 5906.90 and availed the benefit of Notification No.175/86-CE dated 01.03.1986. The department filed an Appeal against the classification list approved under the above two sub-headings and proposed the classification of the said goods under the sub-heading 6807 and also proposed to deny the benefit of Notification No.175/86-CE dated 01.03.1986. 3. The Appellant has already undergone two rounds of litigation upto the Tribunal level. The present appeal is against the demand....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Chapter Heading 59.09, as contended by the assessee; and (ii) whether the process of making blown grade bitumen out of straight grade bitumen amounts to manufacture. XXXXXXXX 4. The Tribunal relying upon an earlier decision of another Bench of the Tribunal in Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcutta-I v. Bitumen Products (India) [1999 (107) E.L.T. 58 (T)], held that 'Bituminised Hessian based felt' is covered under Chapter Heading 59.09 as contended by the assessee and not under 68.07 as contended by the revenue. 5. Admittedly, no appeal was filed by the revenue against the earlier decision of the Tribunal in Bitumen Products (India) (supra) and the same has become final. 6. This Court in a catena of cases has consistently taken t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d be classifiable under Chapter Heading 59.09 and the assessee would be entitled to the exemption from payment of excise duty under the notifications in question." 6. In view of the above decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Appellant stated that the demand is not sustainable and liable to be set aside. 7. The Departmental Representative reiterated the findings of the Adjudicating Authority in the impugned order. 8. Heard both sides and perused the records. 9. We find that the issue is no more Resintegra. On similar facts and circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has upheld the classification of the impugned goods under the chapter heading 5909 . Consequently, the benefit of Notification No.175/86 dated 01.03.1986 was also allo....