1996 (12) TMI 85 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether excise duty can be levied and collected twice on the manufacture of wrapping paper.
2. Entitlement to credit of duty paid on wrapping paper under Rule 56A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
3. Discharge of bank guarantee furnished for duty allegedly payable on wrapping paper clearance inside the factory.
4. Declaration of entitlement to benefit under specific notifications.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner, a public limited company engaged in manufacturing wrapping paper, challenged the respondents' illegal levy and collection of excise duty on the wrapping paper twice. The petitioner argued that duty should only be paid when the wrapping paper is used for wrapping other varieties of paper and cleared from the factory gate, not when transferred within the factory. The Court referred to a previous Supreme Court judgment accepting a similar contention, holding that duty on wrapping paper should be levied only once when the packings with contents are cleared from the factory gate.

2. The petitioner sought credit under Rule 56A of the Rules for duty paid on wrapping paper. The Court directed the respondent to decide on the petitioner's pending applications for credit within six weeks and allow the credit if not already granted. The Court emphasized that duty on wrapping paper should not be collected when cleared inside the factory, as established by legal precedent.

3. The Court ordered the discharge of the bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner for duty allegedly payable on the clearance of wrapping paper inside the factory. This decision was based on the principle that duty on wrapping paper is only levied once when the packings with contents are removed from the factory gate, not during internal transfers within the factory.

4. The petitioner also sought a declaration of entitlement to benefits under specific notifications. The Court declined to grant this declaration but allowed the petitioner to challenge any illegal refusal of benefits under the mentioned notifications through appropriate legal channels. The Court emphasized that all claims and representations should be dealt with promptly and in accordance with the law.

In conclusion, the Court disposed of the petition by directing the respondent to decide on the pending credit applications and discharge the bank guarantee. The petitioner was advised to seek refunds through proper representations, with an assurance of expedited consideration by the concerned authorities.