TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2000 (11) TMI 157
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... petitioner under Notification No. 65/87-C.E. in respect of polythene liner jute bags manufactured by the petitioner. 2. The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of the appeal are that the petition is a manufacturer of jute bags. This jute bags are classified under sub-heading 6301.00 of Chapter 63, Section XI to the Schedule of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Sub-heading 6301.00 relates to textile articles not elsewhere specified including blankets (other than wool), tarpaulins, tents, sails for boats. The prescribed rate of duty against the sub-heading is 12% ad valorem. The Notification No. 65/87-C.E., dated 1-3-1987 exempted various goods described in the notification from so much....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....side and were inserted in the jute bags manufactured by the petitioners and the same is stitched therein. It was also submitted that 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. It was submitted that the jute bags retained their essential identity. Attention was also invited to the subsequent classification for subsequent period which was approved by the authorities. The respondent by its order dated 21st April, 1992 rejected the contention of the petitioner. It was held by the Respondent No. 1 that the polythene lining was inserted inside the bag before baling. It was observed that the operation of insertion ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... substantially change the character of the jute bag. Sewing of polythene line inside the bag is only a marginal one and the substantial character of the jute bag has not changed and therefore the learned Single Judge set aside the order of the Respondent No. 1 and held that these bags are entitled to the benefits under the aforesaid notification. No useful purpose will be served to refer to the various decisions of the High Courts. Suffice it to say that the issue is clinched by a judgment of the Supreme Court having identical facts in the case of Union of India & Ors. v. Tata Iron Steel Co. Ltd. Jamshedpur : 1977 (1) E.L.T. (J61) (S.C.). The question in this case was where the duty paid pig iron is mixed with non-duty paid pig iron, the se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he respondent rightly contends that all the time it is duty-paid pig iron which is processed into ingot moulds and bottom stools and again broken into scrap and melted in the making of steel ingots. 23. The High Court rightly held that the contention of the Revenue falls on two broad grounds. First, there cannot be double taxation on the same article. Counsel for the Revenue gave the example of excise duty on motor cars, in spite of the fact that there was duty on tyres and duty on metal sheets. The analogy is misplaced. In such cases the duty is on the end product of motor car as a whole. The duty on tyres and the duty on metal sheets do not enter the area of duty on motor car. Second, Notification No. 30/60 grants exemption to duty-pai....