Laminated jute exemption turns on product description, not lamination method, under the notification

Laminated jute products were held to fall within Notification No. 53/65 because the exemption covered laminated jute products without prescribing any specific manufacturing process. The Tribunal found no basis to distinguish thermosetting lamination from other methods of lamination, and it relied on an earlier ruling treating bitumen-bonded laminated paper and jute products as laminated jute manufactures. The invoices also described the goods as laminated jute fabrics, supporting their classification within the exempted goods. On that basis, the Revenue's objection that the lamination process excluded the products from exemption failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether laminated jute products were entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 53/65 dated 20-3-65, and whether the manner of lamination excluded the goods from the exemption.

Analysis: The notification granted exemption to laminated jute products and did not prescribe any specific manufacturing process as a condition for availing the benefit. No distinction was created between thermosetting and other methods of lamination. The Tribunal also relied on an earlier decision treating bitumen-bonded laminated products of paper and jute as laminated jute manufactures, and noted that the goods were described in the invoices as laminated jute fabrics.

Conclusion: The respondents were entitled to the benefit of the exemption notification, and the Revenue's objection based on the lamination process failed.

---