SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1993 Supreme(Cal) 95

RUMA PAL
NAFFAR CHANDRA JUTE MILLS LTD. – Appellant
Versus
ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE – Respondent


RUMA PAL, J.

( 1 ) THE Court.-The petitioners carry on business of manufacturing jute. The question involved in this writ petition is whether jute bags with polythene liner are entitled to the benefit of Modification No. 65/87-C. E. dated 1. 3. 87 (as amended) issued under Rule 8 (1) of the Central Excise Rules 1944.

( 2 ) THE facts of the case are not in dispute. The bags in question have been manufactured by the petitioners for some time past and are classified under Sub-heading No. 6301. 00 of Chapter 63, section XI to the Schedule of the Central Excise Tariff Act 1985 (referred to as the Act ). Sub-heading No. 6301. 00 relates to textile articles not elsewhere specified including blankets (other than of wool), tarpaulins, tents, sails for boats. The prescribed rats of duty against the subheading is 12% ad valorem. The Notification No. 65/87-CE dated 1. 3. 87 as amended (referred to as the Notification) exempted various goods described in the notification from so much of the duty of excise leviable thereon as was in excess of the amount laid down in the corresponding entry in column 5 of the Table to the notification. The relevant entry in the table is Entry 06. This Entry read



































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top