1988 (12) TMI 115

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rk of stitching and printing done by them. The Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, by Notification No. 223/86-C.E., dated 3.4.1986, exempted woven sacks of Polymers of ethylene or propylene or its combination thereof, falling under the Heading No. 46.01 or 63.01 of the Schedule from the whole of the duty of Excise specified in the said Schedule. The aforesaid notification was amended by Notification No. 453/86-C.E., dated 20-11-1986 by which a provision was added to the aforesaid notification, whereby the exemption contained in the notification, dated 3-4-1986 was to apply only if such woven sacks are manufactured on flat knitting looms. Thereafter vide another ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lassifiable under Heading No. 63.01 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and Central Excise duty at 12% ad valorem is leviable on such excisable goods as the notification referred to by the petitioners does not exempt such excisable goods, during the period under question i.e. from 1-4-1988 onwards. During the course of preventive checks on 29-7-1988, the Preventive Officers at the Indore Headquarters noticed some bales of HDPE woven sacks lying in the outer part of the factory premises of M/s. V.G. Biscuit and Bread Factory situated at 88, Pologround, Indore. On being asked, one Shri Ashok Pahuja of M/s. V.G. Biscuit and Bread Factory stated that the other part of the premises has been rented out to M/s. Shubham Tailors a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....erefore, it cannot be concluded whether the contention by the petitioners is fully correct or not. 3. After going through the documents filed along with the petition and considering the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that this petition does not deserve admission. It is not in dispute that the matter is still under investigation and the respective contentions of the parties pertaining to the facts are not yet clear. The respondents are not in a position to say whether the contentions pertaining to the facts, as stated by the petitioners, are correct or not. The authenticity of these contentions can be ascertained only after the investigation is complete. Therefore, in our opinion, the petit....