Paragraph numbers below are the court’s original numbering, recovered from the source text.
11. However, in the said show-cause proceedings the Commissioner ultimately dropped all penal proceedings and also the duty demand for the period beyond six months.
12. Ultimately, the matter rested when the appeal was filed c before the Tribunal by the assessee and the tribunalin its order dated 30.9.2005 held as follows: " … .It is seen from the manufacturing process as explained by the learned advocate that the carpet is manufactured in a qontinuous process and the said carpet is to be considered as of one identity rather than as having separate identity of having a exposed surface and under surface. The tacking of the fibers of polypropylene and jute to be further needle punched into Hessian cloth brings into existence one commodity that is carpet."
13. The tribunal after discussing the Chapter Notes, Sub- headings and also the Section Notes returned a finding that the classification should be done on the basis of the predominance test, that is to say, on the basis of textile materials which predomin~te by weight over other single textile material._
14. The tribunal noted that before the adjudicating authorities it has been claimed that the carpets manufactured by the appellants has jute contents of 75% to 85% and the tribunal noted that "the revenue has not disputed this".
15. After opining as above, the tribunal went on to discuss the second question, namely, whether the Hessian cloth has to be separated for the purposes of the predominance test or not?
16. After discussing the matter in detail, the tribunal came ,i.. ,; to a finding that while determining the predominance test, it would not be permissible to exclude base fabric (Hessian cloth).
17. The tribunal came to the conclusion that the predominance test of the assessee's products has to be done taking the product manufactured by it as a whole and not by separating the layers and then applying the pr~dominance test. j..
18. The tribunal also noted that the revenue's reliance on c a single dealer's statement indicating that the assessee's jute carpets are known in the market as "Synthetic carpet" is of no consequence especially when such statement is not substantiated by any evidence.
19. It is well known that the tribunal being the last authority -y on fact, it is not proper for this Court, in exercise of its power under Section 35 L(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, to disturb such findings of the tribunal since such findings are based on evidence.
20. For the reason~ ~;.:;c,ussed above, we find no merit in this appeal. The appeal is dismissed.
21. Since the same questions are involved in the other . -'( appeals with slight factual modification, those appeals for the reasons discussed above and also for the reasons given in Civil Appeal No.7075-7076 of 2005 are also dismissed. . …
22. There shall be no order as to costs. N.J. Appeals dismissed.