1985 (1) TMI 331 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Interpretation of Central Excise Notification No. 68/76 regarding duty exemption for P.V.C. Coated paper.

Analysis:
1. The appeal involved a dispute regarding the interpretation of Central Excise Notification No. 68/76 concerning duty exemption for P.V.C. Coated paper. The respondents, engaged in manufacturing P.V.C. Coated paper, availed complete duty exemption under the said notification. However, the Central Excise authorities contended that the paper did not qualify for the exemption as it was not a converted paper subjected to printing of color on one side.

2. The Assistant Collector disallowed the exemption, leading to an appeal by the respondents to the Appellate Collector, who reversed the decision based on the method of printing used. Subsequently, the Central Government examined the case and issued a show cause notice to the respondents, challenging the Appellate Collector's order.

3. The Central Government tentatively viewed that P.V.C. Coated paper was distinct from printing paper, and the coating did not equate to printing of color as per the notification's requirements. The respondents argued that P.V.C. Coating was akin to the process of printing color, particularly using the rotogravure process.

4. During the proceedings, both parties presented technical arguments regarding the nature of the paper and the printing processes involved. The Departmental Representative contended that the paper did not meet the notification's criteria, emphasizing the distinction between P.V.C. Coating and printing with color.

5. The respondents, through their Counsel, asserted that the P.V.C. Coated paper was indeed printed with color using the rotogravure process, which aligned with the notification's provisions. They referenced technical literature supporting their position on the printing method used.

6. The Tribunal analyzed the notification's language, specifically focusing on the requirement of printing color on one side of the paper for duty exemption. They noted that the P.V.C. printing by the rotogravure method was a recognized form of printing, and the respondents' product met the criteria outlined in the notification.

7. Upon examining the evidence and the samples provided, the Tribunal upheld the Appellate Collector's decision, ruling in favor of the respondents. They found that the P.V.C. Coated paper manufactured by the respondents, printed with color using the rotogravure process, qualified as a converted paper under the notification, entitling them to duty exemption.