Per M.V. Ravindran : The issue in all these appeals is in respect of the classification of the Carpets manufactured by the appellants. The appellants classified the said product, as a "Jute floor coverings" falling under Chapter Sub Heading No. 5703.20 while the Revenue wants it to be classified as falling under Chapter Sub Heading No. 5703.90.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the carpets manufactured by the appellants are liable to be classified as 'Jute carpets' under chapter sub heading No. 5703.20 only. He submits that the manufacturing process involves the tacking of fibres of jute and Polypropylene together and then Needle punching the same to a Hessian cloth in a single processing, with polypropylene at the top layer. He takes us through the Chapter Note No. 1 of the Chapter 57, and according to him this chapter note is for the purpose of the classification of the Carpets in the Chapter 57, based upon the exposed surface being of some textile material, and once the carpets are classified under Chapter 57, this chapter note is not attracted for sub-heading level classification. For this proposition he relies upon the Tribunal's decision in the case of CCE, Bhubaneshwar Vs. Champdany Industries Ltd., 2005 (70) RLT 76 (CESTAT-Kol.). He also submits that the sub-heading level classification of the carpets manufactured by the appellants will have to be done, by resorting to the Section Note 2A and Sub heading Section Note 2A and 2B to the Section XI of the CETA, 1985. He submits that according to these section notes the classification of the appellants products will be under 5703.20 by virtue of the predominance test i.e. which Textile material predominates by weight over the other textile materials in the product. He, further, submits that they have been selling these carpets as 'jute carpets' from 1988 and are still selling them as 'jute carpets'. Thus, the commercial identity of the item is jute carpet. The learned advocate also would submit that the intention and practice of the Government always had been to give the benefit available to jute items to composite items in which jute was a part. The learned advocate has referred to the exemption Notification No. 93/94 which defined carpets of even 35% jute as Jute carpets and granted exemption from payment of duty. For these reasons he submits that the correct classification of the appellants products will be under sub heading No. 5703.20.

3. The learned SDR on the other hand submits that the appellants classification of the product under the sub heading No. 5703.20 is totally wrong and is misplaced. He submits that the carpets manufactured by the appellants would be correctly covered under sub heading No. 5703.90. He submits that the carpets as manufactured by the appellants would be known in the market as Polypropylene carpet as the exposed surface of the carpet is made up of said textile materials. He also further submits that the carpets manufactured by the appellants were not known in the market as Jute carpet. He also relies upon technical literature on carpets which would make it amply clear that the carpet is known in the market by its exposed surface. He states that the commercial parlance theory is applicable in this case. He also further submits that the chapter note No. 1 of the Chapter 57 is also applicable for the purposes of sub heading level classification, and by applying the same the product is liable to be classified as falling under sub heading No. 5703.90. According to him section notes of sub heading 2B would apply, more so, the sub note 1 which makes application of Rule 3 of interpretative rules to C.E.T.A. 1985, and on application of the same the product is classifiable under sub heading No. 5703.90. He, further, submits that if the predominance test is to be applied, even then, since the exposed surface consists of polypropylene the products will be classified under 5703.90.

4.1 Considered the submission made by both sides. In or