2009 (9) TMI 8

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d which is involved in this case is between April, 1996 to October, 1996. 3. The show-cause notice was issued by the Revenue against the respondent on 6.11.1996 alleging the respondent's a case of mis-classification of carpets under heading 5703.20 and thereby mis-utilization of the benefit of Notification No.29/95-CE dated 16.3.95 and 16/96-CE dated 23.7.1996 and thus clearing the goods at concessional rate of duty of 5%. The Revenue's case is that such concessional rate of duty is available only for jute exposed surface floor coverings and, therefore, there has been contravention of Rule 9(1), 52-A, 173-B, 173-F and 173-G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 4. The case of the respondent is that it is manufacturer of blankets, carpets....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... by weight in the product. Therefore, the adjudicating authority followed the decision of CESTAT in the case of Uni Products (I) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise - 2006 (200) ELT 278 (Tri.-Delhi), and held that the process of manufacture of non- woven carpets which is followed in the case in hand is exactly the same which was followed in the case of Uni Products (supra) and accordingly the show-cause proceedings were dropped against the assessee by an order dated 29.11.2004. 6. Against the said order, an appeal was filed by the Revenue and the said appeal came to be decided by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals), Hyderabad. In the course of hearing of the appeal, the appellate authority noted why the adjudicat....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....jected. 8. Following the same parity of reason contentions of the Revenue, which are identical in this case, are also rejected. Apart from that, it appears that in this matter the Revenue's case has been constantly rejected at all the three levels, namely, in the adjudication order passed by the Addl. Commissioner of Central Excise, in the appellate order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and in the Tribunal. Such decisions have been rendered on the basis of the relevant materials and after analyzing the evidence on record as also the provision of Section Notes and Chapter Notes. Such concurrent findings by the lower authorities are interfered with by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 35L of Central Excise and S....