1986 (12) TMI 163

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sp;                                                                S/Shri G. Sankaran, V.T. Raghavachari, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri V. Sridharan, C.A., for the Appellants. Shri Vineet Kumar, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : V.T. Raghavachari, Member (J)]. - Jute yarn and twine manufactured by the appellants M/s Hastings Mill Ltd. were being used by them for further manufacture into jute manufactures classifiable un....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he Central Excise Rules (which rules have been made applicable in respect of levy, collection etc. under the Jute Manufactures Cess Rules, 1976) the cess would be payable on removals for captive consumption within the factory itself. Shri Sridharan very fairly pointed out that this dispute had come up earlier for decision by this Tribunal in the case of Mahabir Jute Mills Ltd. (1984 Vol. 16 E.L.T. 477) and that the Tribunal had held that cess would be payable under the 1976 Rules even in respect of goods removed for captive consumption within the factory for further manufacture of jute manufactures. But he submitted that he would press for our acceptance all the arguments advanced by the assessee in the said case. 4. The contention ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....itten into the Central Excise Act or the rules themselves. Section 51 of the Finance Act achieves the same result. Be that as it may, the Tribunal in its decision in the Mahabir Jute Mills case (supra) had, inter alia, considered the effect of the aforesaid amendments and had taken the view that these amendments would not, in terms, be applicable to rules 9 and 49 as applied to the levy of jute manufactures cess under the Rules of 18th February, 1976. 6. We find that after elaborately going into the matter and after setting out the respective contentions the Tribunal had held that captive consumption for manufacture of further articles in the same factory would amount to removal within the meaning of even the unamended Rules 9 and 4....