9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (9) TMI 146X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Excise duty plus Rs. 1050/- Special Excise duty). As a result of adjudication of the matter, the demand for the above said duty amount was confirmed. The concerned goods, which had been seized were confiscated allowing the appellant the option to redeem the goods on payment of Rs. 500/- only. No penalty was imposed on the ground that appellants were new to the manufacturing business. When appellants went up in appeal, the Collector (Appeals) upheld the order of the Assistant Collector. It Is against this order that the appellants are now before us. 2. We have heard Shri J. S. Agarwal, advocate for the appellants and Shri L. C. Chakraborti, JDR for the department. 3. The learned advocate submits that the issue to be decided in the appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellants that any of the above cited decisions of the Tribunal are in their favour. In these cases, the product, the classification of which was decided by the Tribunal was laminated jute bags and not jute bags as such. The view was taken on the basis of the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Dalhousi e Jute Co. v. Union of India - AIR 1970 Cal. 497. The operative part of the judgment of the Calcutta High Court on the issue of classification was as follows: Jute cloth or jute fabric with a solution would not. change the character of the product and transform It into another product which can also be described as a new manufacture of jute goods. It is undoubtedly a manufacture of now goods or new kind of goods but it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ame necessary in view of the stand taken by the learned advocate that three of the earlier decisions of this Tribunal were in his favour. The fact of the matter is that the impugned goods in those cases were laminated jute bags, which is not at all the case here, as the products are simply jute bags. Appellant s case is that they are manufacturing the goods from duty-paid hessian and that mere stitching of bags does not constitute a process of manufacture attracting any further levy. Besides, it is urged, sub-item (1) of Item 22A-CET is comprehensive enough to cover all hessian products, fabrics as well as jute bags. 7. Now, the first issue that has to be decided by us is whether the stitching of jute fabrics into bags constitutes a proce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... jute bags . 9. The question next to be decided is as to whether, as claimed by the appellants, such jute bags would not be liable to payment of any further duty, as both, hessian cloth as well as jute bags would be covered under sub-item (I) of the relevant Tariff Entry, which is hessians . The department s case is that appellants are manufacturing jute bags and, therefore, liable to Central Excise duty for the production of this new Item out of hessian cloth, which has discharged duty under Item 22A(i) - CET. It has not been established by the appellants either before the lower authorities or before us that the impugned goods are either being sold by them only as hessians or that they are known in the trade as hessians. In common partan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
