TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 1094X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ote clearly refers only to sheets and not sheetings. A clear distinction has been made between sheetings and sheets by the Tribunal in the case of Nanya Exports & Imports and reliance of the Commissioner on this decision is appropriate. No contrary decision has been produced before us of any superior forum. Once the classification under 3926 90 is upheld, exemption from duty is available in terms of N/N. 8/96-C.E., dated 23-7-1996. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - E/718/2006-DB - Final Order No. 21440/2015 - Dated:- 27-5-2015 - G. Raghuram, President and Shri B.S.V. Murthy, Member (T) Shri R. Gurunathan, AR, for the Appellant. Shri Karan Talwar, Advocate, for the Respondent. ORDER [Order per : B.S.V. M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... asis, proceedings were initiated. The proceedings initiated in respect of first show cause notice dated 11-3-1997 involving an amount of more than ₹ 32,00,000/- for the period from 1-3-1996 to 31-12-1996 reached up to the Tribunal and matter was remanded by the Tribunal to the Commissioner to consider the claim of the appellant why the pre-pregs manufactured by them is classifiable under CETH 3926.90. The Tribunal remanded the matter for examination of the claim by the appellant that the pre-pregs manufactured by them and used captively is in continuous roll length of 50 metres and not in sheets. This contention was not made before the lower authorities, the remand order was made. The present impugned order has been passed as per the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ced below : 8. On a careful consideration, and on perusal of the entire order, we are of the considered opinion that the Apex Court s ruling rendered in the case of CC v. K. Mohan Co. Exports is not distinguishable and the findings rendered by Apex Court in the context of description of the terms in the notification is pari materia to the description available in the present notification under consideration. In all other judgments cited by the Counsel, the ruling of the Hon ble Apex Court in K. Mohan Co. Exports case has not been taken into consideration. In the Apex Court judgment referred to, the terms sheets and sheetings have been dealt with and the raw material was plastic films in rolled form and the Apex Court after due ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... description in exemption notification, as has been specifically done by the Apex Court. Further, the Tribunal in these judgments including the other two judgments cited above, had not taken into consideration the effect of ruling of the Apex Court judgment rendered in CC v. K. Mohan Co. Exports (supra). We are not in a position to distinguish the Apex Court s judgment and therefore, respectfully following the same, we have to hold that the item in question is only sheetings and not sheets cut to form size for the purpose of manufacture of Insoles and Midsoles. The findings arrived at by the Commissioner to deny the benefit of Notification is required to be upheld. We do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d cotton fabric based laminated decorative boards. What was under consideration was not pre-pregs or products in the form of rolls. We find that since the product under consideration was cotton fabric based laminated decorative board and there is no observation that what was under consideration was pre-pregs or cotton fabric based laminated sheet in roll form, the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court is not applicable to facts of this case. The appellant also relied upon the decision in the case of Collector of Customs v. K. Mohan Co. Exports [1989 (43) E.L.T. 811 (S.C.)] to submit that film rolls of indefinite length can be more appropriately described as sheeting rather than sheets. On the basis of this decision, it was submitted that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 clearly shows that sheets are covered under CETH 3920-3921. The note clearly refers only to sheets and not sheetings. A clear distinction has been made between sheetings and sheets by the Tribunal in the case of Nanya Exports Imports and reliance of the Commissioner on this decision is appropriate. No contrary decision has been produced before us of any superior forum. Once the classification under 3926 90 is upheld, exemption from duty is available in terms of Notification No. 8/96-C.E., dated 23-7-1996 and there is no contrary submission on this issue. 8. The appellants also have raised the marketability issue but in view of the clear finding about classification, we do not consider it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
