TMI Blog2009 (9) TMI 8X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd 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 Salt Act, 1944 only when such findings are patently perverse or are based on manifest misreading of any legal provision. Here none of these situations is present. – revenue’s appeal dismissed. - 3828 OF 2007 - - - Dated:- 8-9-2009 - D.K. JAIN and ASOK KUMAR GANGULY,JJ. [Judgment per GANGULY, J.] - In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the issue is whether non-woven carpets having expos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing authority returned several findings to the effect that in the past the issue involved in this case was decided in favour of the assessee by Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) vide its order dated 16.07.1993. After the said order, no objection was raised by the Revenue and the assessee continued to discharge its obligation of duty liability in terms of the said order. The adjudication authority also came to a finding that the surface of the goods manufactured by the assessee is neither piled nor looped with ground fabric, rather the goods are manufactured by needle punching process. The aforesaid findings were arrived at after examining a piece of the sample of floor coverings which were produced in the course of hearing. The adjudica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oods in question were correctly classified under chapter sub-heading 5703.20 and are not to be classified under "other" under chapter sub-heading No. 5703.90. The appellate authority also held that the decision of CESTAT in the case of Uni Products (supra) is applicable in the facts of the case. With the said finding, the appellate authority rejected the appeal of the Revenue. 7. When the Revenue further took the appeal up to Tribunal, the Tribunal referred to its decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, BBSR-I Vs. Champdany Industries Limited - 2006 (193) ELT 295 (Tri.-Kolkata), and held that the issue is covered by the decision in Champdany Industries (supra). The appeal filed against the same decision rendered in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
