9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (11) TMI 169X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the goods under TI 22(A) of the first Schedule of the erstwhile CET. 2. The assessee has filed refund claim of Rs. 1,91,316.04 and Rs. 6,942.08 being BED and SED respectively paid by them on the product classified under TI 22(A). It was the Department s contention that the product falls under TI 17(2) and not under TI 22(A) and as such their refund claim was rejected by the Asstt. Collector on the ground that on market survey of the product, it revealed that the products are known as packing paper and classifiable under TI 17(2) and not on the ground that the weight of the jute in any particular instance has been more or less than a prescribed percentage. The learned Asstt. Collector therefore, held that the product are not eligible for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) Ltd. as rendered in Order No. C-885/84, dated 20-11-1984. [1989 (43) E.L.T. 344 (T)]. She contended that the product is known in the trade as paper. Hence TI 22(A) is not attracted in the instant case. 4. Shri K.P. Jagadeesan, learned Advocate for the assessee, submitted that the jute is predominating by weight and by cost, which is not disputed by the Department. The paper used in the product is only for assisting the jute. He contended that the Supreme Court ruling did not deal with this product and has also not dealt with the question of opredoni-nana of weight of Jute over paper and being classifiable under TI 22(A). He contended that the product is known in the trade as jute bag or hessian bag and not as hessian bituminised bags. H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e us. The question arising for our consideration is the appropriate classification in this case. The Supreme Court has considered the question of manufacture and classification of the product bituminised paper. The Supreme Court held that bituminising of paper is a process of manufacture and the bituminised paper fell under TI 17(2) of the first Schedule of the erstwhile CET in the cited rulings. In the case of Babubhai Nyal Chand Mehta the Supreme Court has considered the classification of six products. Items (iv) and (vi) in the reported case jute line bituminised water proof packing paper and hessian lined kraft paper and held it to be classifiable under TI 17(2). 7. Sh. Jagadeesan, learned Advocate has submitted that if the weight ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
