ORDER
Lajja Ram, Member (J)
1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the matter relates to the classification of the canvas canopy, floor matting and seat covers used as motor vehicle accessories. The Revenue sought to classify them as carpets and floor coverings made of textile material. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay, after describing the nature of the goods held that the said articles were not classifiable as floor coverings and were not classifiable under sub-heading No. 5702.90 of the Tariff and had been correctly classified under Heading No. 8708.00 of the Tariff.
2. When the matter was called, no one appeared for the respondents, M/s. Sterling India. Earlier the notice sent to the respondents had been received back undelivered with the postal remarks “LEFT”. The notice was sent at the address given in the records. As it is an old matter in which the original order was passed in the year 1990, we are proceeding to deal with the matter on merits after hearing Shri A.K. Jain, JDR.
3. We have gone through the facts on record. We find that both the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay, who had adjudicated the matter and the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay, had held that the goods in dispute were not the carpets and floor mattings but were accessories of motor vehicles. The goods in dispute are canvas canopy, floor matting and seat covers for motor vehicles. Floor matting was made from jute coated with PVC. Other items also were not used as floor coverings. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) has also referred to the HSN Explanatory Notes and the relevant Chapter Notes to arrive at his conclusion that the type of the goods involved in these proceedings were not to be classifiable as floor coverings.
4. Keeping in view the nature of the products, we do not find any infirmity in the view taken by the lower authorities. We do not find any merit in this appeal filed by the Revenue and the same is rejected. Ordered accordingly.