9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (8) TMI 765X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 12-93) has been dropped by him as barred by limitation. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are :- the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of laminated jute fabrics and laminated jute bags. The laminated jute fabrics manufactured by the appellant out of the duty paid jute manufactures is being consumed by them captively in the manufacture of the laminated jute bags. Inasmuch as the laminated jute bags classifiable under heading 63.01 were fully exempt from duty during the period relevant for the purposes of the present appeal vide Notification No. 76/86-C.E., dated 10-2-86, the Revenue is of the view that the appellant was required to pay duty on the laminated jute fabrics, so manufactured by them. The appellant factory was visited by the Central Excise officers on 19-8-93, who conducted various checks and verifications. It was found that the appellants were not paying any duty on the laminated jute fabrics. Statements of the director as also the other representatives were recorded. Based upon the result of the said enquiries, show cause notice dated 31-3-94 was issued to the appellant proposing duty on the laminated jute fabrics for the period 1989-90 to 1993-94 (u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arations produced by them before him do not bear the signatures of any Central Excise officers, thus creating a doubt about the actual filing of the same. He submits that the said declarations show the official stamp of the Central Excise department and non-signatures of the receiving man would not make them invalid. By referring to earlier decisions of various judicial and quasi -judicia1 authorities he submits that the failure on the part of the assessee to pay duty was not on account of any mala fide intention and as such, extended period was not invocable against them. Shri Bagaria also argues that in any case and in any view of the matter they are entitled to avail the benefit of the Modvat credit of duty paid on the jute manufactures which have been utilised in the manufacture of laminated jute fabrics by the appellant. He also assails the imposition of personal penalty. 6. As regards the dropping of demand of duty of Rs. 5,65,513.59 (rupees five lakh sixty five thousand five hundred thirteen and fifty nine paisa) by the Commissioner Shri Bagaria supports the same by submitting that the adjudicating authority has observed that the declarations for the said period were d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cts in the instant case are not disputed. Admittedly the appellants are buying jute manufactures from various manufactures and are laminating the same with plastics, which process results in emergence of laminated jute fabric, which is an identifiable product. The jute manufactures are classifiable under chapter 53, whereas the laminated jute fabrics are classifiable under Chapter 59. Though the appellant at the time of adjudication before Commissioner had challenged the said classification, but no arguments in support of the same have been advanced before us. As such we proceed to decide the disputed issues by accepting the classification of laminated jute fabrics under chapter 59. 10. The said jute fabrics so manufactured by the appellant are used by them captively in the manufacture of laminated jute bags. In the ordinary course such laminated jute fabrics were not required to pay duty, if consumed captively in the manufacture of the dutiable final product. Inasmuch as the final product i.e. jute bags is exempted in terms of the provisions of Notification No. 76/86-C.E. and the appellants are clearing the same without payment of duty, the said laminated jute fabrics become ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laminated jute products are exempted unconditionally and wholly from payment of duty leviable thereon. There cannot be any qurrell about the legal proposition that the circulars issued by the Board are binding by the lower authorities, provided they are on the relevant issue. As already observed the circulars referred to by the appellant do not advance their case and hence it cannot be said that the Commissioner should have followed the same. It is also noted that subsequently two notifications No. 250/77, dated 23-7-77 and Notification No. 63/87, dated 1-3-87 were issued granting full exemption to "fire resistant jute products" and "LDPE laminated jute fabrics". If the appellants' contention that the exemption was already available to the said two products for Notification No. 53/65 is accepted, then there was no need to issue another notifications granting full exemption to the products in question. This clearly shows that the exemption to the said goods was not available under the provisions of Notification No. 53/65-C.E. 11. As regards the limitation we observe that the adjudicating authority has already extended the benefit to the appellant where they could produce the e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
