1983 (6) TMI 208 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Interpretation of Central Excise Tariff entry 17(2) regarding the levy of duty on bituminised water proof paper manufactured by the appellants.
- Whether the duty paid on kraft paper used as the base should be refunded as it was already paid under the same tariff entry.

Analysis:
1. The appellants contended that the wording of the tariff entry 17(2) remained the same during the relevant period and relied on a previous order of the Bench in their favor.
2. The Department argued that manufacturing bituminised water proof paper constituted a new product different from kraft paper, justifying a separate duty on the final product.
3. The Department representative highlighted the wide scope of tariff entry 17(2) and the practice of differential duty on converted papers to prevent discrimination against integrated units.
4. The Tribunal analyzed the Central Excise Tariff entry 17(2) and concluded that duty paid on kraft paper as "Paper or Paper Board" did not warrant a second levy on the bituminised water proof paper, even if it was a different product.
5. The Tribunal emphasized the absence of separate sub-entries or distinct product enumeration within item 17(2), distinguishing it from other tariff items with separate levies for different products.
6. The argument of discrimination against integrated manufacturers was dismissed, suggesting that any discrimination could be rectified through tariff amendments or exemption notifications.
7. The Tribunal rejected the reliance on Supreme Court judgments cited by the Department, stating that the scope of the tariff entry was clear and did not require reference to exemption notifications.
8. Based on the earlier Bench's decision in a similar case, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, allowing their appeals and granting consequential relief without the need for a larger Bench review.