ORDER
C. Satapathy, Member (T)
1. These appeals have been filed against one order-in-appeal relating to three show cause notices and three orders-in-originals. Two of the appeals have been filed after a delay of two days. The applications for condonation of delay in respect of these two appeals are allowed considering the fact that the delay is only for two days.
2. The main issue involved in this case is interpretation of Notification No. 8/96, dated 23-7-1996. The appellants used 100% waste paper as raw material for manufacturing paper. The lower authorities have treated waste paper as ‘Rags’ and have denied the exemption. The learned Consultant for the appellants points out that the notification itself defined ‘Rags’ to be cut pieces of saree and fabrics and hence waste paper cannot be covered under the said definition. He also states that whether waste paper is ‘Rags’ was not even the subject-matter of the show cause notice and the lower authorities have traversed beyond the scope of the show cause notice. He further states that the appellants have no machinery to manufacture paper by using conventional raw material such as bamboo, hard wood or soft wood. He also refers to Board’s Circular No. 61/16/97-CX-4, dated 24-9-1997 which clarified that any raw material not covered under the terms “bamboo”, “hardwood” and “softwood” is to be treated as unconventional raw material when a doubt was raised whether waste paper could be considered as unconventional raw material.
3. We have heard Shri M.K. Gupta, learned Jt. C.D.R. in the matter.
4. In view of the fact the appellants are manufacturing paper out of 100% waste paper; they are entitled to exemption available to paper made from unconventional raw materials. The finding by the lower authorities that waste paper is same as ‘rags’ is not tenable as the term ‘Rags’ refers to textile material.
5. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned orders passed by the lower authorities and allow the appeals. The stay petitions also stand disposed off.