TMI Blog1985 (9) TMI 190X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Central Excise Tariff. The appellants have urged that these goods be classified under item 22A relating to jute manufactures. The dispute relates to the period from 1-3-1975 to 5-6-1979. With effect from 6-6-1979, laminated jute bags falling under item No. 68 of the Tariff became fully exempt from duty under notification No. 204/79/CE, dated 6-6-1979. 2. The subject laminated jute bags were manufactured out of jute fabrics laminated with paper, the two being bonded together with the help of bitumen. In the laminated condition, the jute content predominated. In holding that the laminated jute bags fell under item No. 68 of the Tariff, the lower authorities have relied on the Calcutta High Court judgments reported at A.I.R. 1970 Cal. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court left the question of classification of laminated jute bags open if such bags were manufactured in an integrated process within the same factory, i.e., not out of duty-paid jute fabrics brought from outside. (2) The alternative plea of the appellants was that laminated jute fabrics, prior to their conversion into bags, fell under item 22B relating to coated/laminated textile fabrics but under this item they were exempt under notification No. 100/77-C.E., dated 3-6-1977. When converted into bags, such bags fell under Item 68 but no duty was payable because of exemption notification No. 179/77-C.E., dated 18-6-1977 since they had not used power in stitching the bags. The appellants maintained t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inating Works, Calcutta, in which the above interpretation was reiterated. Copies of these two letters have been placed by the appellants at pp. 27 and 28 of the paper book. The appellants stated further that because of this practice of classification by the department prevailing at that time, the same Appellate Collector gave the benefit of normal time limit of six months to M/s. Calcutta Laminators, vide copy of the Order-in-Appeal No. 1287/Cal./81, dated 7-9-1981 placed at pp. 29 and 30 of the paper book. The appellants desired that the same benefit of six months time limit should be given to them also. In response to a query from the Bench, the appellants admitted that they had used power in laminating jute fabrics with paper. The B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, not time barred. 4. We have carefully considered the available record and the submissions made by both sides. We observe that the aforesaid two judgments of the Calcutta High Court in the case of M/s. Dalhousie Jute Company are specific on the issue of classification of laminated jute bags. We find that the interpretation placed by the appellants on the Calcutta High Court judgments is erroneous. The judgments have clearly held that laminated jute bags were a new product and that they did not fall under item 22A relating to jute manufactures. Since no contrary judgment has been brought to our notice, we respectfully follow the judgments of the Calcutta High Court. These judgments had considered the question of classification of laminat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, we notice that the discussion in that case was whether laminated jute bags should fall under item 17 relating to paper or under item 22A relating to jute manufactures. Item 68 was not in the picture when the Mahakali case was argued before us. Further, the Calcutta High Court judgments in the case of M/s. Dalhousie Jute Company were also not brought to the Bench s notice in that case by either side. In the circumstances, we do not feel bound to follow the earlier Bench order. 6. Coming to the alternative plea of the appellants regarding classification, we notice that there was a prima facie case for putting laminated jute fabrics, prior to their conversion into bags, under item 22B which related to Coated/laminated textile fabrics . B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... served on the appellants covers the period from 18-6-1977 onwards also, before confirming it the Assistant Collector and the Appellate Collector ought to have gone into the question of exemption under notification No. 179/77-CE, dated 18-6-1977 on the basis of the appellants claim that the bags were manufactured with manually operated machines and not with the aid of power. However, we find that neither the Assistant Collector nor the Appellate Collector has gone into this aspect. Since going into it requires verification of fact-whether power was or was not used in manufacturing the bags-we are unable to do so at our level. But since the appellants have taken this plea at the first available opportunity, it is only fair that their claim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
