innes Waston and Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. the issue in the present matter is the correct classification of laminated jute bags manufactured by the appellants out of hessian, on which appropriate amount of duty of excise has been paid under itam 22-a of the central excise tariff.2. appellants submit that in their products, the weight of jute predominates, that is, it is more than of other materials and, therefore, they should be classifiable under item 22-a of the central excise tariff. it is urged that prior to the introduction of tariff item 68, such products were classified by the department under item 22-a of the central excise tariff and were exempted by virtue of notification no. 53/65 dated 20-3-1965 as amended by notification no.150/65 dated 18-9-1965. it was a matter of surprise for the appellants to receive a show cause notice dated 7th june, 1979 from the assistant collector of central excise asking them to show cause as to why the laminated jute bags should not be classified under item 68 of the central excise tariff. the assistant collector of central excise decided that in view of the order of the calcutta high court in the case of dalhousie jute mills to the effect that laminated jute products are not "jute manufactures" within the meaning of central excise tariff item 22-a and the provisions contained in notification no. 204/79 dated 6-6-1979, which clearly stated that laminated jute bags were classifiable under tariff item 68, the impugned goods were classifiable under tariff item 68. this decision of the assistant collector was upheld by the appellate collector of central excise, calcutta against whose orders, appellants have come up before us.3. shri r. bagla, director of the appellant company, reiterates the submissions made before the lower authorities and emphasises the point regarding predominance of jute in the goods in question.4. shri k.c. sachar, learned departmental representative submits that the issue for determination in the present matter has already been decided by this bench in the following order:-birla jute manufacturing co. ltd. v. collector of central excise, calcutta.5. we have carefully considered the facts of the case and the submissions made before us. we agree that the point at issue in the present matter is fully covered in favour of revenue, in the earlier decisions of this bench cited by the learned departmental representative. in this connection, reproduced below is an extract of para. 9 of the order of this bench in the case of birla jute manufacturing co. ltd. (supra): 9. we have carefully considered the facts of the case and the submissions made before us. so far as the classification of the impugned goods is concerned, we find that it is covered fully by a decision of this bench in the case of sri ram jute mills ltd., calcutta v. collector of central excise, calcutta . in passing this order, this tribunal had in turn relied on the decision of the calcutta high court in the case of dalhousie jute co. ltd. v. union of india . it was observed by this bench that the judgment in the case of dalhousie jute co. ltd. was specific on the issue of classification of laminated jute bags. it was clearly held that laminated jute bags were a new product and that they do not fall under item 22-a relating to jute manufactures. noting that the judgment in the dalhousie jute co. had considered a question of classification of laminated jute bags during the period prior to 1st march, 1975, when the central excise tariff item 68 did not exist whereas in the matter pertaining to sri ram jute mills, the dispute related to the post 1-3-1975 period, when item 68 was very much there, it was held that if item 22-a did not apply, then the only other appropriate tariff item for laminated jute bags would be the residuary item no. 68.6. respectfully, concurring with the view taken in the above cases, we find no merit in the present appeal, which is dismissed.

Judgment:
1. The issue in the present matter is the correct classification of laminated jute bags manufactured by the appellants out of hessian, on which appropriate amount of duty of excise has been paid under Itam 22-A of the Central Excise Tariff.

2. Appellants submit that in their products, the weight of jute predominates, that is, it is more than of other materials and, therefore, they should be classifiable under item 22-A of the central excise tariff. It is urged that prior to the introduction of tariff item 68, such products were classified by the department under item 22-A of the central excise tariff and were exempted by virtue of notification No. 53/65 dated 20-3-1965 as amended by notification No.150/65 dated 18-9-1965. It was a matter of surprise for the appellants to receive a show cause notice dated 7th June, 1979 from the Assistant Collector of Central Excise asking them to show cause as to why the laminated jute bags should not be classified under item 68 of the central excise tariff. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise decided that in view of the order of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Dalhousie Jute Mills to the effect that laminated jute products are not "jute manufactures" within the meaning of central excise tariff item 22-A and the provisions contained in notification No. 204/79 dated 6-6-1979, which clearly stated that laminated jute bags were classifiable under tariff item 68, the impugned goods were classifiable under tariff item 68. This decision of the Assistant Collector was upheld by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta against whose orders, appellants have come up before us.

3. Shri R. Bagla, Director of the appellant company, reiterates the submissions made before the lower authorities and emphasises the point regarding predominance of jute in the goods in question.

4. Shri K.C. Sachar, learned Departmental Representative submits that the issue for determination in the present matter has already been decided by this Bench in the following order:-Birla Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta.

5. We have carefully considered the facts of the case and the submissions made before us. We agree that the point at issue in the present matter is fully covered in favour of revenue, in the earlier decisions of this Bench cited by the learned Departmental Representative. In this connection, reproduced below is an extract of Para. 9 of the order of this Bench in the case of Birla Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (supra): 9. We have carefully considered the facts of the case and the submissions made before us. So far as the classification of the impugned goods is concerned, we find that it is covered fully by a decision of this Bench in the case of Sri Ram Jute Mills Ltd., Calcutta v. Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta .

In passing this order, this Tribunal had in turn relied on the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Dalhousie Jute Co. Ltd. v. Union of India . It was observed by this Bench that the judgment in the case of Dalhousie Jute Co. Ltd. was specific on the issue of classification of laminated jute bags.

It was clearly held that laminated jute bags were a new product and that they do not fall under item 22-A relating to jute manufactures.

Noting that the judgment in the Dalhousie Jute Co. had considered a question of classification of laminated jute bags during the period prior to 1st March, 1975, when the central excise tariff item 68 did not exist whereas in the matter pertaining to Sri Ram Jute Mills, the dispute related to the post 1-3-1975 period, when item 68 was very much there, it was held that if item 22-A did not apply, then the only other appropriate tariff item for laminated jute bags would be the residuary item No. 68.

6. Respectfully, concurring with the view taken in the above cases, we find no merit in the present appeal, which is dismissed.