Order No. A-257/CAL/99 arising from in Appeal No. E (SB)605/92. Case: Sap Bagging Co. (P) Ltd. Vs Commissioner of C. Ex., Bhubaneswar. CEGAT (Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal) & CESTAT (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal)
| Case Number | Order No. A-257/CAL/99 arising from in Appeal No. E (SB)605/92 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Shri S.K. Bagaria, Advocate and For Respondents: Shri R.K. Roy, JDR. |
| Judges | Shri G.R. Sharma, Member (T) and Smt. Archana Wadhwa, Member (J) |
| Issue | Central Excise Act, 1944 - Section 11A |
| Judgement Date | April 20, 1999 |
| Court | CEGAT (Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal) & CESTAT (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal) |
Order:
Archana Wadhwa, Member (J), (Eastern Bench At Calcutta)
-
The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of HDPE sacks/bags from HDPE woven fabrics in tubular form. The inputs i.e. HDPE woven fabrics in tubular form received by them from their customers, are cut and stitched into sacks. The dispute in the present appeal relates to the admissibility of exemption under Notification No. 223/86-C.E., dated 3-4-1986, as amended during the period from 1-3-1988 to 20-7-1989. The Department was of the view that the woven sacks manufactured out of HDPE tubes or tubular fabrics which have in turn been manufactured on circular looms, will not be benefitted from the said Notification inasmuch as it will amount to manufacture of woven sacks on circular looms. The demand of duty for the period from 1-3-1988 to 20-7-1989 has been confirmed by the adjudicating authority for holding so.
-
Shri S.K. Bagaria, learned Advocate appearing for appellants submits that the issue on merits has been decided against the assessee in the case of M/s. Chariot Cement Company v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhubaneswar reported in 1999 (112) ELT 277 (Tribunal) = 1998 (28) RLT 558 (CEGAT). As such, he is restricting his arguments on the point of limitation. He also clarified that in the case of Chariot Cement, the demand has been held to be barred by limitation inasmuch as the appellants had duly declared in their declaration against Column - "Process of manufacture" - mentioned as "stitched out of HDPE tubes/fabrics which are exempted from duty." He also submits that it was observed by the Tribunal that having disclosed the nature of raw material as HDPE tubes, the appellants cannot be said to have suppressed anything from the Department inasmuch as HDPE tubes can be said to have been woven only on circular looms. He submits that similar circumstance exists in their case also. He draws our attention to the various declarations filed by the appellants during the relevant period, wherein against the column - "Process of manufacture", it has been clearly mentioned that the final product is stitched out of the duty paid HDPE tubes/fabrics. Apart from this, he also draws our attention to the correspondence exchanged between the appellants and their jurisdictional Central Excise authorities on the subject. He also submits that in the year, 1989 a show cause notice was issued by the Assistant Commissioner concerned on the same grounds which were ultimately...
To continue reading
Request your trial