2003 (10) TMI 504 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved:
Interpretation of Notification No. 53/65 for exemption on laminated jute products.

Analysis:
The appeal revolved around whether the manufacturer of laminated jute products is eligible for the exemption under Notification No. 53/65. The Commissioner (Appeals) had granted the benefit to the respondents, stating that their products are indeed laminated jute fabrics falling under Heading 5903.90. The Revenue challenged this decision, arguing that the lamination process used did not meet the criteria specified in the notification. The Tribunal noted that the notification did not specify the exact manufacturing process required for the exemption. Referring to a previous case, it was established that products with bitumen-bonded layers of paper and jute should be considered as laminated jute manufactures. Additionally, the respondents had consistently referred to the goods as laminated jute fabrics in their invoices.

The Tribunal, after hearing arguments from both sides, concluded that the notification did not differentiate between different manufacturing processes for laminated jute products. Citing the precedent set by the Mahakali Plastic Weave Pvt. Ltd. case, the Tribunal affirmed that products with bitumen-bonded layers should be considered for the exemption. Given these factors, the Tribunal found no fault in the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision to grant the benefit to the respondents. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed, upholding the decision in favor of the respondents.