1998 (2) TMI 316

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... lso claimed. The classification list was duly approved on 11-10-1991 by the concerned Assistant Collector of Central Excise. 1.2 Later on, however, the Revenue authorities on rethinking of the matter issued a show cause notice dated 18-6-1992 to the respondents herein as to why the benefit of Notification 65/87-C.E., dated 1-3-1987 be not denied to them, in view of the facts that the product was not manufactured entirely of jute and it was not known as sack and bag of jute in the commercial parlance. 1.3 On adjudication, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise withdrew the benefit of Notification 65/87 from the aforesaid product. His ground for denying the benefit of Notification 65/87 was that the said lower rate of duty is applica .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of Notification 65/87-C.E. to the product in question. These are (i) the product is not made entirely of jute and (ii) it is not known in the trade as sacks and bags of jute. He further submits that the adjudicating authority denied the benefit of Notification 65/87 only on the first ground without giving any finding on the second allegation in the show cause notice i.e. nomenclature of the product in the trade. On the first ground he also submits that the finding of the adjudicating authority is vague in nature inasmuch as it does not give the percentage of composition material-wise i.e. how much jute is there in D.W. Tarpaulin and how much polythene is there in the product. It cannot, therefore, be said that the product has, as such, char .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... uthority to determine the question of commercial parlance which is well-settled for classifcation of the goods and for application of an ememption Notification. 5. Opposing the contention, ld. Advocate, Shri K.K. Banerjee submits that there is a direct judgment on the controversy regarding the applicability of Notification 65/87-C.E., dated 1-3-1987 to D.W. Polyliner. D.W. Tarpaulin jute bags in the case of Naffar Chandra Jute Mills v. Assistant Collector of Central Excise [1993 (66) E.L.T. 574 (Cal.)]. It has been held therein, he submits, that the benefit of the said Notification cannot be denied to the said products. He, therefore, submits that the Revenue s Appeal be dismissed. 6. We have carefully considered the pleas advanced fro .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X