1986 (9) TMI 209 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund claim rejection based on exemption notification.
2. Conflict between decisions of different cases.
3. Classification of laminated jute products under Central Excise Tariff.
4. Benefit of exemption under Notification No. 53/65 for laminated jute products.
5. Continuance of exemption after reclassification under a new Tariff Entry.

Analysis:
1. The appellants filed a Revision Application for a refund claim of Rs. 1,09,563.72, rejected by the department citing an exemption notification issued post the relevant period. The appellants argued that their goods, laminated jute products, fulfilled the conditions for classification as "Jute Manufactures" under Tariff item 22-A of the Central Excise Tariff. They also highlighted past practices and trade notices supporting their claim.

2. The appellants cited various case laws in their favor, including decisions like Warden & Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE Thane and Dalhousie Jute Co. Ltd. v. Union of India. A conflict was noted between the decisions of Sri Ram Jute Mills Ltd. and Warden & Co. Pvt. Ltd., leading to a plea for reference to a Larger Bench.

3. The Tribunal examined the classification of the impugned goods in detail. Relying on previous decisions, it was established that laminated jute products did not fall under Item 22-A but were correctly classifiable under the residuary Item No. 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. The judgment emphasized the specific nature of laminated jute products and their classification under the Tariff.

4. The appellants sought the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 53/65 for their products. The Tribunal considered the case of Madura Coats Limited, where the benefit of an exemption notification continued even after reclassification under a new Tariff Entry until specifically withdrawn or superseded.

5. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, concurring with the decision in the case of Sri Ram Jute Mills Ltd. that the impugned products were correctly classifiable under Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. The judgment clarified the classification of laminated jute products and the implications of exemption notifications post-reclassification.