COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Vs. CHAMPDANY INDUSTRIES LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(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.

(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.