9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (3) TMI 369X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that under the provisions of Rule 3 of Jute Manufacturing Case Rules, 1984 effective from 1-10-1984, case is leviable only on the final jute products as has been held by the Tribunal in the case of Nellimarla Jute Mills v. C.C.E. - 1987 (31) E.L.T. 209 (Tribunal) = 1987 (12) ECR 1018. He also refers to the Tribunal's decision in the case of Hooghly Mills Products Ltd. v. C.C.E., Calcutta (being Order No. A-765-766/Cal/97 dated 18-7-1997) wherein the Tribunal has held that no case is leviable on the intermediate jute product which has been consumed captively. As such he submits that jute yarn and jute twine and Hessian or jute sacking manufactured in the appellant's factory have been cleared to M/s. Murlidhar Ratanlal Exports Ltd., Calcutta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... held as not payable w.e.f. 1-10-1984 as per Rule 3 of the Cess Rules. 5. However the problem in the present case is different. Here jute manufactures have not been used by the appellants in the same factory where they have been produced. Instead the same have been cleared to their other factory after following Chapter X Procedure. It has been contended before us that the jute manufactures were exempted from payment of central excise duty in terms of Not. No. 121/94-C.E., dated 11-8-1994 where they were used within factory of production in or in relation to the manufacture of corresponding final product. The said Notification also provided that where such use of inputs is for a factory of manufacturer different from his factory where the g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ture removed under Chapter X Procedure shows that the Jute products on the removal under Chapter X Procedures cannot be considered as a case of captive consumption. Had it been so there was no need for introducing proviso to the said Notification. Shri Moitra also argues that since exemption from Central Excise duty was extended to the Jute products used in another factory under Chapter X Procedure the same should also be considered as far as cess is concerned. We find that the Calcutta High Court in the case reported in 1991 (55) E.L.T. 510 has held that exemptions notification under Central Excise act are not applicable to the duty on jute manufactures imposed by Section 3 of Jute Manufactures Cess Act, 1983. As such the said notification ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere is no categorical finding of the original adjudicating authority on the point of sale of jute products to M/s Murlidhar Ratanlal Exports Ltd. and subsequent payment of cess by the said company on their final product when cleared on sale, we think it proper to remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority on this issue. 7. We also note that the demand in question is for the period 1-1-1995 to 15-3-1995 and the show-cause notice was issued on 2-8-1995. It is also on record that before clearing jute products to their another factory the appellants had filed C/Lists showing that cess on jute will be paid at the time of final removal by M/s Murlidhar Ratanlal Exports Ltd. who were also informed by the Department vide their lette ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
