- (1.) ALONG with this appeal other appeals were heard together. There are some common questions but factually this case is different from other cases. So this judgment will govern these two appeals.
(2.) THE respondent in these two appeals are manufacturers of carpets by interlacing yarns of three different types, namely, jute, cotton and polypropylene. It is the case of the respondent-company that in the carpets which it manufactures jute always predominates by weight over each of the other single textile material. In the case of M/s. Champdany Industries limited, at an earlier stage of the proceedings an order was passed by the commissioner (Appeals) on 27. 06. 1995, whereby the Commissioner (Appeals)remanded the matter to the original adjudicating authority to decide whether the carpets manufactured by M/s. Champdany industries Limited have separate base fabric. The Commissioner found that the said question is technical in nature and in order to remove any doubt, matter was referred to an expert body like Jute commissioner Office for its opinion. Pursuant to the said remand order, the department drew samples of the carpets manufactured by the respondent and sent the same to the Jute Commissioner's office. The Jute Commissioner got these samples tested by the expert body of the jute Industry, namely, Indian Jute industries Research Association and the report of the said association shows that jute predominates by weight over each other single textile material in the said carpets and the said carpets did not have any base fabric.
(3.) IN the show-cause notice, which has been issued in this case, these facts are admitted. In the adjudication order passed in this case by Assistant commissioner of Central Excise and customs, Bhubaneswar, this fact has also been noted and from the said adjudication it will appear that the jute content in those carpets is 51. 45% in B. L. and 52% in s. M. Those B. L. and S. M. are the varieties of carpets manufactured by the respondent-company and in these two Civil Appeals, namely C. A No. 7075-7076 of 2005 we are concerned with those two varieties of carpets. Despite the said report, the Revenue's case is that the surface of the carpet being entirely of polypropylene, the same cannot be classified as jute carpet.;