1991 (11) TMI 169 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Classification of product under Tariff Items 22(A) and 17(2), refund claim rejection, predominance of jute in product, applicability of Supreme Court rulings

In this case, the main issue revolves around the classification of a product, namely Paper laminated hessian bags, under Tariff Items 22(A) and 17(2) of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff (CET). The Revenue challenges the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) which classified the product under TI 22(A) due to the weight of hessian being more than 50%. The assessee filed a refund claim for BED and SED, but it was rejected by the Asstt. Collector on the grounds that the product falls under TI 17(2) as packing paper, not TI 22(A) as a jute product.

The Revenue argues that the product should be classified under TI 17(2) based on various rulings, including those of the Supreme Court and the Tribunal, stating that the product is known in trade as paper, not as hessian bags. On the other hand, the assessee contends that the product should fall under TI 22(A) due to the predominance of jute by weight and cost, emphasizing that the product is recognized as jute or hessian bags in the market. The assessee also challenges the credibility of the market survey used by the Asstt. Collector to reject the refund claim.

The Tribunal carefully considers the submissions and legal precedents cited by both parties. It notes the Supreme Court's rulings on the classification of bituminised paper and similar products under TI 17(2). The Tribunal also acknowledges the argument regarding the predominance of jute in the product and the conflicting interpretations of various cases. Ultimately, the Tribunal upholds the Asstt. Collector's order, following the Supreme Court's classification of similar products under TI 17(2), thereby rejecting the appeal and supporting the Revenue's position.