TMI Blog1987 (11) TMI 189X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that they had been doing so with intention to evade payment of the said duty. The appellants claimed that the subject goods were classifiable under Item 22A CET and that the demand under notice was not justifiable. The Assistant Collector rejected the said defence and held that the company was liable to pay duty under Item 68 CET for the period 1-3-1975 to 5-6-1979. The reference to 5-6-1979 was for the reason that under Notification 204/79-CE dated 6-6-1979 laminated jute bags had been exempted from payment of duty under Item 68 CET. The appeal against the said order was dismissed by the Appellate Collector under his order dated 25-6-1982. This appeal is against the said order. 2. We have heard Shri N. Mookherjee, Advocate for the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e said decisions of the Calcutta High Court, in the absence of any other judgment of any High Court to the contrary on the question of classification of the subject goods. The Tribunal observed that after 1-3-1975 the position will be different since the goods would thereafter fall under Item 68 CET as goods not elsewhere specified in the CET. It is for this reason that the Tribunal held that after 1-3-1975 the goods were classifiable under Item 68 CET and became liable for duty till 5-6-1979 when they became exempt under Notification No. 204/79-C.E., dated 6-6-1979. 5. Shri Mookherjee submits that the said decisions were not correct since they did not take note of the amendments to the entry 22A in 1972 and again in 1977. 6. In 1972, I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lative percentages by weight of the different fibres/yarns comprising a given manufacture and if jute predominates, then the manufacturer would fall under Item No. 22A. The item would not appear to cover a manufacture which comprises jute manufacture as defined in Item No. 22A and any other article not falling under Item No. 22A such as in the present case involving laminated jute bags or articles made out of hessian fabric and a plastic film or sheet laminated with the fabric. Such a composite product would not fall under Item No. 22A since it would no longer be a mere jute manufacture. We are unable to accept the contention that the earlier judgments were wrong for the reason that the amendments had not been taken into consideration. 9. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
