2009 (9) TMI 6

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....xtile material like polypropylene felt or polypropylene fiber and as such these goods cannot be classified as non-woven jute floor coverings. 3. In the case of Civil Appeal No.3758 of 2006, the show-cause notice was issued on 5.5.1997 and the case of the Revenue as set out in paragraph No. 6.8 of the show-cause notice is as follows:  "......Therefore, it appears that the said textile floor coverings are classifiable as `other textile floor coverings' under sub heading 5703.90 of CETA leviable to duty @ 30% Adv. and not as floor coverings of jute under sub heading 5703.20 of CETA......" 4. The case of the respondents-company as disclosed in the counter affidavit is that it has relied on a technical opinion given by 2 Prof. P.K.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....material predominates in weight that will determine the classification of the product. Since admittedly jute predominates in weight over other textile material, namely, polypropylene goods are classifiable only under heading 5702.20 and the classification already approved does not require any change." 8. In the ultimate finding in the said order the Adjudicating Authority came to the following conclusion: "....In the background of these facts, it would be seen that the party's contention based on Chapter Note(1) of Chapter 57 and Sec. Note (2) and (14) of Sec. XI that floor coverings are classifiable under 5702.20 is correct. The show cause notice says that polypropylene constitutes exposed surface and hence floor covering of the part....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....covering namely polypropylene. Hence the floor covering cleared by the party can be classified only under 5702.20 and not under 5702.90. Thus on the merits of classification of floor covering, party's contention alone represents the correct interpretation and the classification already approved by the Assistant Collector is hereby affirmed and confirmed." 9. Strong reliance was placed by the respondents on the said finding by the adjudicating authority and the learned counsel for the Revenue could not point out anything to the contrary. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that despite the aforesaid finding, the present show- cause is wholly unnecessary. 11. However, in the said show-cause proceedings the Commissioner ....