9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (9) TMI 209X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en rejected by the department on the ground that it pertains to the period prior to the issue of Notification No. 204/79, dated 6.6.79 which exempted such goods and, therefore, the claim could not be entertained. 3. At the outset, when the matter was called, Dr. Gauri Shankar, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants submitted that they have already filed a Writ in the Calcutta High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, which has been admitted and an interim order issued. Accordingly, it would be inadvisable for other Courts to proceed with hearing in respect of the same matter. The learned Departmental Representative, Shri K.C. Sachar on the other hand stated that the issue involved is already covered by a decision of this Tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there was a conflict between the Tribunal s decision in the case of Sri Ram Jute Mills Ltd. 1986 (23) ELT 446 and Warden Co. Pvt. Ltd. (supra). He, therefore, felt that the issue may merit to be referred to a Larger Bench. 7. Shri K.C. Sachar, the learned Departmental Representative stated that he relied entirely on the decision of the Sri Ram Jute Mills case. Referring to the decision in Warden Company s case (supra), it was submitted from the department s side that the issue in that matter related to a decision as regards classification under either item 17 or Item 22-A of the Central Excise Tariff. The position here, it is submitted, is quite different. Further, it is stated that the appellants cannot rely on Trade Notices issued ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not fall under Item 22-A relating to jute manufactures. Noting that the judgment in the Dalhousie Jute Co. had considered a question of classification of laminated jute bags during the period prior to 1st March, 1975, when the Central Excise Tariff Item 68 did not exist whereas in the matter pertaining to Sri Ram Jute Mills, the dispute related to the post 1.3.75 period, when Item 68 was very much there, it was held that if Item 22-A did not apply, then the only other appropriate Tariff Item for laminated jute bags would be the residuary Item No. 68. 10. The appellants on the other side, have relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Warden Co. (India) Pvt. Ltd. Bombay v. Collector of Central Excise, Thane - 1986 (24) - EL ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an earlier decision of this Bench in the case of Mahakali Plastic Weave Pvt. Ltd. Bombay v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay 1983 ELT - 2064 in which it was held that Tariff Item 17 pertained to paper and paper board could hot be held to include a product in which as much as 2/3rd of the total weight was made up of material other than paper. It was held that it was not shown that the product was a kind of paper. Accordingly, it was decided that laminated products which comprised bitumen paper and jute, with the latter predominating in weight, would be correctly classifiable under Tariff Item 22-A as jute manufactures and not as paper board of all other kinds of paper under Central Excise Tariff Item 17(2) ibid. 11. We observe tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd. 13. We have also carefully considered the submission of the appellant that in view of the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of Madura Coats Limited (supra) they should be given the benefit of the exemption under Notification No. 53/65, dated 20.3.65 which exempted inter alia, laminated jute products falling under Item No. 22-A of the Central Excise Tariff from so much of the duty of excise leviable thereon as was in excess of the duty payable on un-processed jute manufactures used in the manufacture of such products. As an alternative plea, it is argued that even if it is held that the goods are classifiable under the residuary Item after 1st March, 1975 then, in view of the decision in the case of Madura Coats Ltd. (sup ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f jute goods. What is, therefore, being charged under the impugned notice of demand being the difference in weight of the laminated jute goods and the raw jute goods, is the weight of the materials used for lamination, that is, polythene, gum tape and other adhesive materials used for making the coating. No duty is chargeable on such materials. The authorities are trying to do indirectly what they could not do directly, namely, charge excise duty on articles used". 15. It would be seen from the extract of the judgment cited above that it had been held by the Calcutta High Court that laminated jute products should be considered new goods or new kind of goods and mere lamination of jute goods should not be considered as manufacture of jute ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
