1980 (11) TMI 59 - HC - Central Excise

Bituminised water proof paper or bond paper - Liability to duty - Manufacture - Alternative remedy

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether bond paper is liable to excise duty under the Excise Act.
2. Whether the process of manufacturing bond paper qualifies as manufacturing under the Act.
3. Whether the levy of duty on bond paper constitutes double taxation.
4. Whether the writ petition is maintainable despite alternative remedies available under the Act.
5. Whether bond paper is distinct from kraft paper for the purpose of excise duty.

Analysis:

1. The partnership firm, as the writ petitioner, challenged the levy of excise duty on bond paper under the Excise Act. The firm argued that the duty invalidated by the Madras High Court led to the dumping of bond paper in Andhra Pradesh, affecting their business. The main issue was whether bond paper falls under the category for excise duty, specifically under clause (2) of item 17 of the Act.

2. The Revenue opposed the petition, asserting that duty is properly leviable under the Act. The dispute centered on whether bond paper is considered "manufactured" under the Act, with the process involving asphalt and kraft paper. The key question was whether the process adopted by the firm constitutes manufacturing for the purpose of excise duty.

3. The firm contended that the levy on bond paper amounted to double taxation as kraft paper and Bitumen were already taxed individually. However, the Revenue cited exemptions and special procedures under the Act to refute the claim of double taxation. The argument revolved around whether the duty on bond paper constituted impermissible double taxation.

4. The Revenue argued that the firm had alternative remedies under the Act and should not resort to Article 226 of the Constitution. The court found the writ petition maintainable due to the challenges faced by the firm in marketing their goods effectively.

5. The distinction between bond paper and kraft paper was crucial in determining the dutiability of bond paper. The court analyzed the manufacturing process, components, and commercial usage of both types of paper to establish whether bond paper should be subject to excise duty. The judgment disagreed with the Madras High Court's decision on the classification of bond paper and upheld the levy of duty on bond paper.

In conclusion, the writ petition challenging the excise duty on bond paper was dismissed, emphasizing the differentiation between bond paper and kraft paper for excise purposes. The court rejected the arguments of double taxation and upheld the validity of the duty levy on bond paper based on the manufacturing process and commercial distinctions between the two types of paper.