TMI Blog1998 (3) TMI 256X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In this appeal filed by M/s. Niraj Cement Structurals, the matter relates to the classification of the products which had been referred to by the appellants in the classification list as RCC Tiles. The appellants had classified their products under sub-heading 6807.00 of the Central Excise Tariff and claimed the benefit of exemption Notification No. 59/90-C.E., dated 20-3-1990. The Collecto ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the purview of Notification No. 59/90-C.E. and the concessional rate of central excise duty was available to the goods in question. 3. Shri Satnam Singh, SDR, replied that there is no dispute that the goods were in the form of tiles. The tiles were excluded from the purview of Notification No. 59/90-C.E. and the fact that the tiles were used for protection of the cables could not be a groun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ication No. 132/88-C.E., dated 15-3-1988 while in the present proceedings, the benefit of Notification No. 59/90-C.E., dated 20-3-1990 had been denied to them. We find that under Notification No. 132/88, dated 15-3-1988 all goods falling under Heading No. 6807.00 of the Tariff were eligible for the concessional rate of duty. There was no exclusion of the goods classifiable under sub-heading No. 68 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the cable running below the ground, it had to be taken that these tiles were used for floor coverings only. He had further observed that a tile continues to remain a tile whether it is re-inforced or not. He held that the appellants product under dispute was used as floor coverings inasmuch as it is placed on the floor and covers the cable running underneath. 6. Taking note of the product, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
