9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (1) TMI 281X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... va Dass, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri M. Haja Mohideen, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : G.R. Sharma, Member (T)]. - The Collector (Appeals) disallowed the benefit of captive consumption provided under proviso to Rules 9(1) and Rule 49(4) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 on the ground that HDPE fabrics arose in the process of manufacture of HDPE tapes to HDPE sacks. 2. The fac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Rules 9(1) and 49(4). 3. Shri G. Shiva Dass, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants submits that Rules 9(1) and 49(4) stipulated that the benefit shall be available to the commodities provided the goods are specified by the Central Government by Notification under sub-rule (1) of Rule 56A, (2) the commodity was classifiable under the same Item No. in the first schedule to the Tar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pes as inputs have been utilised in the manufacture of HDPE sacks in terms of the provisions of 3rd proviso to Rule 9. There is no dispute whatsoever that HDPE tapes and HDPE sacks were both falling under the same Tariff Item 68 before the new Tariff came into existence. Condition Nos. (ii) and (iii) of the 3rd proviso to Rule 9 are, therefore, clearly satisfied in the instant case. Condition No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cture of sacks from HDPE granules, the fabrics came into existence and since HDPE fabrics were not classifiable under the same Tariff Item i.e. the then T.I. 68, therefore, the lower authorities have rightly denied the benefit. He reiterated the findings of the Assistant Collector. 5. Heard the submissions of both sides. We find that the short point for determination before us is whether the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
