Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2016 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (3) TMI 224 - AT - Central ExciseJute mattings manufactured - whether are floor coverings or not ? - Notification No. 29/95-CE dt 16/3/1995 benefit claimed - Held that:- Both the Revenue as well as the Respondent has relied upon the same Dictionary description of the word “mattings” as neither the word “matting” nor “Floor covering” has been defined in Notification No. 29/95-CE. As per this dictionary meaning “matting” has been described as plaited or woven mats & similar articles made of coir fiber Jute Straw and the uses are for floor or wall covering & table mats. It is thus observed that as per this meaning the mattings can also be used & understood as floor coverings. The argument taken by the Revenue that floor coverings of jute should be exclusively used for floor covering is not supported by as such specific mention in the exemption notification. It has been correctly observed by the Adjudicating authority that jute mattings are neither specifically included in Sr. No. 1 nor excluded from Sr. No. 3 of the table annexed to Notification No. 29/95-CE dt 16/3/95. Revenue has also taken an argument that exemption to Jute Matting was available under earlier Notification No. 50/90-CE dt 20/3/90, therefore, Jute Mattings are different products. In this regard we observed that Notification No. 50/90-CE dt 20/3/90 does not say that Jute mattings are not floor coverings. Accordingly we hold that nothing bars the appellant to avail the benefit of Sr. No. 3 to Notification No. 29/95-CE for their product Jute Mattings when the products can also be capable for other uses. It is not the case of the Revenue that the goods manufactured by the Respondent can not be used at all as floor coverings. Accordingly we do not find any reason to interfere with the orders on merits passed by the Adjudicating authority in allowing the claim - Decided in favour of assessee Extended period of limitation - Held that:- There was no willful suppression or misstatement on the part of the Respondent to evade payment of duty and accordingly we also hold that extended period can not be invoked in the present proceedings.- Decided in favour of assessee
|