1998 (2) TMI 300

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ade. The department contended that this is a further manufacturing activity and differential duty was demanded from the appellants on the activity of covering these uncovered pillows by adding value thereon. The department considered the covered pillows as a new product and demanded duty of Rs. 7,07,612.40. It is against this order the present appeal is filed by the appellants. 2. Shri P.C. Anand, Chartered Accountant appearing for the appellants relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in their Order No. 3744/96, dated 3-12-1996 in their own case. In para 8 of this order, the Tribunal has held as follows : 8. We are in this appeal concerned with the terms of the Notification 108/73. This notification exempted all articles of polyuret .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... enjoyed the benefit of exemption under Notification 108/73. The fact that the appellant at one stage had chosen to pay duty on the uncovered pillows removed from the factory cannot override the applicability of the notification. Pillows manufactured by the appellant, uncovered or covered are articles manufactured from waste or scrap of polyurethane foam and as such benefit of Notification No. 108/73 as also Notification 11/74, dated 2-2-1974 would be available to the appellant. He therefore, contended that the pillows after covering are not a different commodity. He pointed out that the uncovered pillows are not dutiable as they were exempt under Notification 108/73. It was therefore, pointed out that when the Tribunal held that uncovered .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ain as that of pillow. Therefore, in terms of the above decision of the Tribunal demand of differential duty on these items are not legal. It was contended by the learned DR that carry-cots is another item which is involved in this case. The Chartered Accountant drew our attention to the order of the original authority at page 2 of the order wherein it is stated that carry-cots were manufactured out of duty paid cushions and the said cushions were inserted into the covering and the opening of the top side were stitched. He, therefore, stated that these are cushions stitched in a particular manner and therefore, these cushions themselves are manufactured from waste and scrap and no further duty can be charged. 5. The learned DR on the oth .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X