Per Lajja Ram:

In this appeal filed by the Revenue the matter relates to the classification of the product described by the adjudicating authority as Bituminised Hessian based Felt. The adjudicating authority had classified the products under heading No. 68.07. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Calcutta after examining the matter in detail had confirmed the classification held that the goods were correctly classifiable under heading No. 5909.00.

2. We have heard Shri R.K. Roy, Ld. JDR for the Revenue, Shri S. Guhathakurta, Ld. Consultant is present for the respondents M/s. Bitumen Products (I).

3. We have carefully considered the submissions made from both the sides. We have gone through the grounds of appeal. The goods have been described by the Revenue as Bituminised Hessian based Felt. They have submitted that the essential character of the goods was as an article of Bitumineous material. They have also referred that chapter note (C) of Chapter 68 specifically excludes coated impregnated or covered textile fabrics ofchapter 56 or 59 from the purview of chapter 68.

4. The heading No. 68.07 of the tariff covers other articles of stone, plaster, cement, asbestos, mica or similar materials as were specified or included in chapter 68 which covered articles of stone, plaster, cement, asbestos, mica or similar materials. The expression "similar materials" has to be seen in the light of the other articles specifically mentioned in the Tariff Entry No. 68.07, i.e. stone, plaster, cement, asbestos and mica. From the description of the goods as given by the Revenue in the grounds of appeal we do not consider that the Bitumen was similar to these products.

5. The appellate authority had classified the goods under sub-heading No. 5909.00 of the Central Excise Tariff which covered other textile products and articles suitable for industrial use. The appellate authority has referred to the I.S.I. specification No. IS-1322-1982 and has also referred to the earlier Order-in-Appeal No. 142/Cal-I/92 dated 28.9.92 of his predecessor.

6. On going through the details of the product and the discussion by the Ld. Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) we find no material on record to take a different view than the one taken by him.

7. As a result we do not find any merit in this appeal filed by the Revenue and the same is rejected.