Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1993)2CALLT79(HC),1993(66)ELT574(Cal)
..... the classification lists submitted by the petitioner in respect of poly-lined jute bags. thirdly, the excise authorities are still treating poly-lined jute bags as bags/ sacks of jute as far as other manufacturers are concerned. it cannot be assumed that the excise authorities in all these cases are acting on any mis-appreciation or mistaken view of the trade parlance. it ..... of basic excise duty of the product declared in the said classification list and order payment of basic excise duty @ 12% ad valorem in additional to other duties like special cess etc. in view of the discussions made hereinabove relating to classification list no. 34/sr/ncj/9o-91 dated 17.2.91 (range si. no. 182/d.d. ..... 87 is not acceptable.i order the product is assessable at the rate of 12% ad valorem in respect of basic excise duty in addition to other duties like special cess etc.further, it is seen that the similar product as declared in the classification list (range si. no. 23/d.d. tarpaulin bag/91-92 dated 17.5. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1988)(17)LC497Tri(Delhi)
..... calcutta high court judgment in the case of collector of central excise, calcutta and ors. v. national jute manufacturers corporation limited and ors. [1985 (22) e.l.t. 907]. he further argued that section 9 of the idr act is self-contained and there was no question of applying the provisions, old or new of section ..... the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that section 9 of the industries (development and regulation) act, 1951 (hereinafter to be referred to idr act) provides for cess to be levied and collected for the purpose of idr act on all goods manufactured and automobiles are one of them. he submitted that explanation to section 9(1) of the ..... notice contained in the statement of allegation was that the wholesale cash price and consequently the value was deliberately mis-declared in order to evade payment of "cess duty".4. after hearing the appellants and observing due process, the collector in his order confirmed the demand and imposed a penalty. have carefully gone through .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta
Reported in : (2003)(159)ELT457Tri(Kol.)kata
..... the said notification.in any case we note that the same is not applicable inasmuch as the same lays down the procedure to be adopted by the manufacturers of grey jute, jute manufactures as regards clearance of their final product.similarly another circular dated 24-3-65 is to the effect that after considering the representations made by the industry ..... 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. ..... chapters 53, 59 or 63 of the schedule to the central excise tariff act, 1985 (5 of 1986) from the payment of so much of the excise duty leviable thereon as is in excess of the duty payable on unprocessed jute manufacturers used in the manufacture of the jute products. [notification no. 53/65-c.e., dated 20-3-1965 as .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1989)(19)ECC51
..... the lower authorities, had not been looked into by them. the applicablity of notification no. 53/65 had been considered by the tribunal in the case of birla jute manufacturing co. ltd. (supra) and it had been ruled that the notification was inapplicable.9. we have carefully considered the submissions of both sides. at the outset, ..... no. 68, cet, and not under item no. 22a ibid. this decision was based on the calcutta high court judgment in dallhousie jute co. ltd. v. union of india holding that laminated jute bags were not jute manufactures within the meaning of item no. 22a, cet. with the creation of the residuary item "no. 68, cet, with effect from ..... 1979 issued to m/s. calcutta laminators (the appellants), manufacturers of laminated jute bags, were called upon to show cause why the said goods should not be classified under item no.68 of the first schedule (hereinafter referred to as the "cet") to the central excises and salt act, 1944, why central excise duty should not be demanded .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2005(3)BomCR713; [2006(106)FLR85]; (2005)IILLJ1010Bom; 2005(2)MhLj906
..... held that the words 'central excise act' and 'rules' contained in the said rule should be construed as if the words 'for the time being in force' were there after ..... to that act instead of setting out for itself at length the provisions which it decided to adopt.13. on behalf of appellant bank a reference was made to the decision of the supreme court in bhatinda improvement trust v. balwant singh : [1991]3scr928 where the court while construing rule 3 of jute manufacturers cess rules, 1976 ..... assist the appellant. rule 3 with which the supreme court was concerned, made the provisions of the central excise act and the rules made thereunder applicable in the matter of levy and collection of cess under the jute rules. it was a clear case of legislation by reference. in such a case, naturally the subsequent amendments .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1970Cal497
..... of (i)hessian....rs. 250 /- per metric tonne (since increased to rs. 450/-);(ii)all other descriptions of jute manufactures not otherwise specified (including cloth bags, twist yarn, rope and twine)..rs ..... , it used to obtain supplies of such jute goods from other jute mills and also took such jute goods from its own mills at champdani. by section 16 of the finance act, 1962 entry 22a was introduced in the first schedule to the central excises and salt act, 1944. the said item was as follows:--22a.-- jute manufactures (including manufactures of bimplipatam jute or of mesta fibre), all sorts .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1990)(50)ELT141TriDel
1. by a notice dated 7-6-1979, . the appellants herein who are manufacturers of laminated jute bags, were called upon to show cause why the said goods should not be classified under tariff item 68 of the first schedule to the central excises and salt act, 1944, why central excise duty should not be demanded in respect of goods cleared from ..... 2. we have heard shri n. mukherjee, the learned advocate for the appellants and shri j. narayanan nair, jdr for the respondents. (i) laminated jute bags are jute products falling under tariff item 22a, cet ("jute manufactures, all sorts") but are exempted from duty under notification no. 53/65-c.e., dated 20-3-1965 as amended and this position has been ..... barred by limitation. the contentions of the dept. that there has been wilful suppression in as much as the appellants have been wilfully mis-declaring their product as jute manufacture does not hold water in the light of dept's own clarification dated 4-8-1975 and 14-5-1976 that the laminated .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (2001)(75)ECC826
..... is classifiable under the then chapter heading 52.05 and not under heading 59.09.12. tarpaulins manufactured by processing cotton fabrics were sought to be classified under chapter 59 of the central excise tariff act. that was challenged by the manufacturer of tarpaulins. that issue came up before this tribunal in binny ltd. vs. collector of ..... the belief that they fall under chapter 52 of the cental excise tariff act and so not liable to duty. department took up the stand that the goods manufactured are classifiable under heading 59.09 or 59.11 of the cental excise tariff act. thereupon, show cause notices were issued demanding huge amounts by way of ..... duty and penalties for violation of the provisions of the cental excise act, 1944 and the rules framed thereunder. manufacturers tried to substantiate their contention that the goods as cleared by them from their factory were classifiable under chapter 52 of the tariff act only and that they are not classifiable under heading 59.09. since .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR2003Cal281
..... amended by a further notification dated 1st november, 2002 by incorporating a clause, amongst others, to specify the maximum or minimum quantity of raw jute or any specified variety of jute which a manufacturer shall purchase from any specified person or agency or otherwise, during any specified period. 4. against this background, let me take note of ..... days from the date of putting requisites for drawing up and completion of the order and certified copy of this judgment. 16. all parties are to act on a signed copy minute of the operative part of this judgment on the usual undertaking and subject to satisfaction of the officer of the court in ..... intimated and it becomes compulsory under section 5(1) of the jute and jute textiles control order, 2002. 3. from the gazette notification dated 19th april. 2000 central government made a jute and jute textiles control order, 2000 in exercise of power conferred by section 3 of the essential commodities act, 1955. order no. 3, order no. 4 and order .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC389; (1978)1SCC69; [1978]2SCR219
..... co. v. omademull i.l.r. 38 cal. 127 the court was dealing with a delivery order and a common form of contract used by die indian jute manufacturers association. clause 3 of the contract is similar to the clause in the present contract and runs as follows :-payments to be made in cash in exchange of ..... to any specific lot of goods. it is well established that title cannot pass until the goods are ascertained in view of section 18 of the sale of goods act, 1930. (see jute, and gunny brokers ltd. and anr. v. union of india and ors. : [1961]3scr820 it was argued that requisite quantities of goods were lying in the mills' ..... contracts with the mills before he could demand deliveries. such conditional delivery orders are certainly not documents of title as defined by section 2(4) of the sale of goods act, which lays down:(4) 'document of title to goods' includes a bill of. lading, dock-warrant, warehouse keeper's certificate, wharfingers' certificate, railway receipt, warrant or order for .....
Tag this Judgment!