ORDER
G.P. Agarwal, Member (J)
1. This appeal by the Department alongwith the captioned application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal is directed against the order-in-Appeal No. 569/Cal/84 dated 3-5-1984 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Calcutta.
2. Factual structure of the case is that the respondent M/s. Kamarhatty Co. Ltd., Kamarhatty cleared Packsheet and stitching twine and used the same for the purpose of packing of jute consignments for export during the period from 1-2-1979 to 11-1-1980, which according to the department was done without discharging duty liability on such packsheets and stitching twine. Consequently demand was raised and confirmed by the Assistant Collector vide his Order-in-Original dated 22-12-1983. On appeal by the respondent the Collector (Appeals) after setting aside the order of the Assistant Collector allowed the appeal. Hence the present appeal by the Department.
3. Since there was a delay in filing the appeal, the department also moved the captioned application for condoning the delay, which was heard and allowed because there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal in time.
4. Arguing on behalf of the appellant Shri L.C. Chakravarti, learned JDR reiterated the grounds taken up in the memorandum of appeal submitting that Rule 13 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 provides for export under Bond of goods on which duty has not been paid. As per explanation (ii) appended below the said rule the term “goods” includes excisable goods used in the manufacture of the goods which are exported. Since Packsheet and stitching twine are nothing but packing materials the same cannot and should not be treated as integral part of Jute manufactures which are exported nor Jute packsheet and jute stitching twine arc used in the manufacture of jute manufactures which are exported. That during the material period there was no exemption on Jute Packsheet falling under T.I. 22A and jute twine falling under T.I. 18D of CET for the purpose of packing consignment in the factory of production for export.
5. In reply Shri B.B. Gujral, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the issue involved in the present case stands fully decided in favour of the respondent by the judgment rendered by this Tribunal in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Kanoria Jute Mills, Calcutta, 1984 (17) ELT 455 and further that the same view was reiterated by the Tribunal in the case of respondent itself (Kamarhatty Co. Ltd.), Order No. 377/86-D dated 5-6-1986 and Collector of Central Excise v. Bally Jute Co. Ltd., – Order No. 652/88-D dated 27-10-1988 reported in 1989 (44) ELT 570 (Tri.)
6. We have considered the submissions and find that the issue raised by the department in this appeal as reiterated by the learned JDR as above stands fully answered by the judgment of this Tribunal rendered in the ease of Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta v. Kanoria Jute Mills, supra. In that case dealing with a situation arising under Rule 13 of the Central Excise Rules, which is the case here also, it was held that no duty was payable on the jute pack sheets as well as the jute manufactures for export in such Packsheets. The Collector (Appeals) has also relied upon the same judgment of the Tribunal.
7. In view of the above following the ratio of the judgment of the Kanoria Jute Mills’ supra, we reject the contention raised by the learned JDR and consequently the appeal also.