1984 (5) TMI 171 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 regarding duty payment for manufactured paper.
2. Eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 68/76-C.E.
3. Classification of paper as dyed on one side for exemption purposes.

Analysis:
The appeal involved a dispute over the duty payment for paper manufactured by subjecting white tissue paper to dyeing. The Assistant Collector ruled that the colored tissue paper was dutiable under Item 17(2) CET, leading to a demand for payment and imposition of a penalty. The Appellate Collector upheld this decision, stating that the thin paper was colored on both sides, making it ineligible for exemption under Notification No. 68/76-C.E. The appellant argued that the paper appeared printed on both sides due to the dye showing through, but it was actually printed on only one side.

The key contention revolved around the eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 68/76-C.E. The appellant claimed that the paper, though appearing colored on both sides due to dye permeation, was actually printed on one side only. The department argued that without a classification list, the appellant failed to establish exemption entitlement. However, the Assistant Collector confirmed the appellant held a valid license for manufacturing paper under Item 17 of the CET, rendering the license exemption argument moot.

The manufacturing process involved passing white tissue paper through rollers with one roller dipped in a dye bath, coloring the paper as it passed through. The Appellate Tribunal noted that while the paper appeared colored on both sides due to dye permeation, it was not subjected to printing on both sides as required by the exemption criteria. The Tribunal concluded that the paper was dyed on only one side, making it eligible for the exemption under Notification No. 68/76-C.E.

In the final judgment, the Tribunal ordered the assessment of the paper as a converted paper subjected to printing of color on one side under the said notification. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and a refund was directed to be granted promptly, emphasizing the correct interpretation of the exemption criteria based on the manufacturing process and the actual application of color on the paper.