The phrase “of Jute” plainly read means “only of Jute”.

( 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 reads :

Sl. No. Heading No. or Conditions Description of goods Rate subheading No. 63. 01 Sacks and bags of Jute   Rupees 660 per tonne

In other words, the maximums Excise duty on sacks and bags of jute was Rs. 660/- per tonne.

( 3 ) THE petitioners submitted Classifications Lists claiming exemption under the said notification in respect of the said polythene lined jute bags. The classification lists gave full particulars of the bags manufactured by the petitioners including inter alia the weight of the jute cloth, weight of the polythene lining and the twine. The

classification lists were approved and the petitioner was granted the benefit of the notification. In the same manner the petitioners submitted classification lists effective from 17. 2. 91, 5. 4. 91, 8. 4. 91 and 19. 8. 91. The last three classification lists were approved by the respondent no. 1. As far as the first classification list was concerned, no approval was granted and on 7th January 1992 the respondent no. 1 issued a notice to show cause to the petitioner in which it was noted that the petitioner no. 1 had submitted a classification list dated 17. 2. 91 in respect of the bags containing polythene lining under sub-heading 6301. 00 claiming assessment of basic excise duty at Rs. 660/- in terms of the said notification. The show cause went on to say that although the bags in respect of which the exemption was claimed by the petitioners were classifiable under subheading no. 6301. 00, the petitioners were not entitled to the benefit as the bags had not been manufactured entirely of jute and was not known as sacks or bags of jute in commercial parlance. The petitioner no. 1 was accordingly asked to show cause why excise duty @ 12% ad valorem plus 5% special on basic plus cess at Rs. 132/- per MT should not be realised in respect of the said bags for the relevant period. The petitioners replied to the show cause notice on 12. 3. 92. They stated that the polythene bags were purchased by the petitioners from outside and were inserted in the jute bags manufactured by the petitioners and stitched in. The weight of the jute bags including the weight of the jute twine used sewing worked out to 453 grams against the weight of the polythene bags the weight of which was 12 grams. According to the petitioners the polythene bags retained their identity and worked out only to 11. 18% of the total weight of the bags. The respondent no. 1's notice was also drawn to the fact that three classification lists for the period subsequent to the period covered by the classification list in question had been approved.

( 4 ) BY an order dated 21. 4. 92 the respondent no. 1 rejected the contentions of the petitioner. This order has been impugned in these proceedings. The respondent no. 1 has stated th