1983 (12) TMI 295 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Show Cause Notice.
2. Classification of the product under the Central Excise Tariff.
3. Applicability of Notification No. 68/76.
4. Competence and jurisdiction of the Assistant Collector to review an approved classification list.

Summary:

1. Validity of the Show Cause Notice:
The Counsel for M/s. Entremonde Polyecoaters argued that the Show Cause Notice dated 23rd January 1979 was unsatisfactory as it did not specify why the Central Government viewed PVC coating as different from printing of color under Notification No. 68/76. The absence of reasons made it difficult for the notice receiver to contest the action.

2. Classification of the Product:
The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Nasik, had classified the plastic-coated paper under Tariff Item 17(2) and ordered the recovery of Central Excise duty for the period '74-'76. The Appellate Collector, however, had overruled this classification. The Tribunal found that the paper used by M/s. Entremonde Polyecoaters was initially classified under sub-item 17(1) and not 17(2). Therefore, the duty charged under 17(2) was not a case of charging duty twice.

3. Applicability of Notification No. 68/76:
The Counsel for M/s. Entremonde Polyecoaters argued that PVC coating on the paper should qualify as printing with color, thus earning the exemption under Notification No. 68/76. However, the Tribunal held that merely adhering a colored PVC sheet to the paper did not amount to printing with color as required by the notification. The paper itself must partake of the color, which was not the case here.

4. Competence and Jurisdiction of the Assistant Collector:
The dissenting opinion by M. Gouri Shankar Murthy highlighted that the Assistant Collector did not have the jurisdiction to review an approved classification list. The power of review must be expressly or implicitly granted, which was not the case here. The Assistant Collector's order was void, and subsequent proceedings arising from it were of no consequence.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the Appellate Collector's order and restored the Assistant Collector's order, holding that the product by M/s. Entremonde Polyecoaters was correctly classified under Tariff Item 17(2) and was not entitled to the exemption under Notification No. 68/76. The dissenting opinion emphasized the lack of jurisdiction of the Assistant Collector to review the classification list.