TMI Blog2006 (4) TMI 122X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... per the trade understanding and usages, cement tiles, the subject-matter of the present case, is a form of floor itself and, therefore, entitled to the benefit of Exemption Notification No. 59/1990. Appeal allowed. - 1489 of 2001 - - - Dated:- 17-4-2006 - Ashok Bhan and Lokeshwar Singh Panta, JJ. [Judgment per : Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.]. - This Statutory Appeal is filed by M/s. Indcon Structurals (P) Limited under Section 35L(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") against the Final Order No.- 1557/2000, dated 14th November, 2000 of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (for short "the CEGAT"), Chennai, in Appeal No. E/1554/94-D-MD, setting aside the Order dated 16th May, 199 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ary to conduct an on-the-spot study since the issue for adjudication was in regard to the product classification. The adjudicating authority accordingly visited the factory premises of the assessee-Company and studied the manufacturing process of cement tiles. Finally, the adjudicating authority came to the conclusion that cement tiles manufactured by the assessee-Company are covered under sub-heading 6807.00 as such the benefit of exemption Notification No. 59/90, dated 20th March, 1990 is available to the Company. 4.The Revenue preferred an appeal against the said order of the adjudicating authority before the Collector (Appeals). The First Appellate Authority confirmed the order of the adjudicating authority holding that the cement til ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot in dispute that the product of the assessee is in the form of tiles, but these tiles are used for floor coverings and as such the majority members of the CEGAT have rightly denied the benefit of exemption to the assessee-Company. 9.Thus, the core question involved in the present appeal is whether the cement tiles, manufactured by the assessee-Company, are used for floor coverings in the form of tiles for the purpose of assessment of the rate of excise duty under Notification No. 59/90 or the goods are exempted from payment of such duty as claimed by the assessee-Company. Notification No. 59/90-C.E., dated 20th March, 1990 has been issued by the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred under sub-section (1) of Section 5A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mption Notification No. 59/90, but it has acquired a definite trade and business understanding. The record shows that the adjudicating authority in its order has recorded categorical finding that in support of the claim, the assessee-Company has produced on record certificates of the well-known Architects or Engineers and Town Planners, Interior Design Engineers and Consultants and users to the effect that the cement tiles manufactured by the assessee-Company are totally different from floor coverings. Some samples pertaining to floor coverings and other products, including cement tiles, were produced by the assessee-Company as material evidence for comparative analysis before the adjudicating authority at the time of inspection of the fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gs are quite replaceable in nature since they are mechanically placed on the floor and could be reusable also, whereas the tiles such as mosaic/granite/cement tiles which are basically embedded to the floor is normally on lifetime basis and further that such tiles once laid on the floor are almost impossible to remove without breaking or causing damage to the floor itself. The major differences that exist between the floor materials and floor covering materials along with specifications maintained by ISI No. 1237/1980 for cement tiles and ISI No. 11206/1984 and ISI No. 809/92 for other floor covering materials would go to show that basically the specifications so maintained by ISI for cement tiles and for other floor covering materials are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taken by the adjudicating authority, the first appellate authority and the Member (Technical), CEGAT, have only observed that no restricted meaning could be given to the expression "floor coverings" as to include only those items which could be just separate or placed on the floor and to put the items that are affixed to the floor to cover the same out of its purview. The second Member (Technical) in his separate order, supporting the order of the Member (Judicial), has mainly relied upon an earlier decision in Niraj Cement Structurals v. Collector of Central Excise, Mumbai [1998 (101) E.L.T. 284 (Tribunal)]. We have gone through the said decision of the Tribunal but, in our considered view, the same is of no assistance or help to the Reve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
