9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (2) TMI 181X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts, the demand consequent to this order of classification was quantified against the appellants. As respects this quantification another appeal No. 1284/84-C was filed by the appellants to the Tribunal. This appeal was not originally cause listed but on request of the appellants, to which the respondent had no objection, the two appeals were listed for hearing together along with connected Cross Objection No. 113/83-C and heard together. 3. Facts material for decision of these appeals are that the appellants classification list 5/79-80, dated 1-4-1979 classifying Carbon Paper and Carbonised Adding Machine Rolls under Item 68 of CET was approved by the Assistant Collector on 4-9-1979. The appellants till December, 1979 continued to clear these products under this Tariff Item. The Superintendent of Central Excise by notice dated 29-12-1979 rescinded this approval and called upon the appellants to show cause why the products be not classified under T.I. 17(2) on the ground that the products were coated papers classifiable under item ibid from 16-3-1976 due to change in definition of T.I. 17. The notice called upon the appellants to furnish written explanation against the proposed a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her v. Kores (India) Ltd. (1977 Vol. 39 STC 8) he submitted that for the purpose of a notification issued under the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, the Supreme Court had held that in absence of a definition the word paper had to be understood in common parlance or commercial sense. The word in the common parlance or in the commercial sense means paper which is used for printing, writing or packing purposes. He submitted that the two products are not paper in proper sense but articles of paper. In particular, he drew attention of the Bench to amendment of Item 17 of the Tariff by the Finance Act, 1980 by which under the heading of the Tariff Articles of Paper specified therein were included in the item and sub item 3 added to include carbon and other writing papers. He submitted that but for this amendment and inclusion carbon paper and carbonised adding machine rolls would not have been classifiable before the amendment under T.I.17(2) otherwise there was absolutely no necessity to amend the heading as also add sub item 3 therein. Shri Mehta, in particular, relied on a Karnataka High Court decision in Khoday Industries v. Union of India 1986 (23) E.L.T. 337 in support of his argume ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pport his argument that T.I. 17 as it originally stood in included paper and paper board all sorts and absence of specific mention of the same in the Tariff would not take it out of the Tariff Item and consign it to residuary Tariff item 68. To reinforce this argument Shri Sundar Rajan drew attention of the Bench to para 13 of Karnataka High Court judgment in Khoday Industries case (supra) which is in the following words : There is force in the contention of Sri Bhat (appearing for the Union of India) that so far as the process that the ordinary paper undergoes and the treatment that is given to base paper for converting it into carbon paper, it may appropriately fall under the description of coated paper . Adding the two portions together in the Guardian Plasticote case of Tribunal and Khoday Industries case of Karnataka High Court he submitted that carbon paper being coated paper would, before amendment of Tariff in 1982, also be classifiable under Item 17(2) of CET. Shri Sundar Rajan submitted that the proper approach, if the Bench was inclined not to follow the earlier six decisions of the Tribunal regarding classification of carbon paper under Tariff Item 17(2) before am ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ication of carbon paper while the learned JDR for the respondent has relied on six decisions of the Tribunal classifying the same under T.I. 17(2), Shri Mehta has relied on a Single Judge later decision of Karnataka High Court in Khoday Industries Ltd. v. Union of India others [1986 (23) E.L.T. 337 - decided on 30-10-19851 The question is whether Tribunal decisions should be followed or the decision of Karnataka High Court. This is the only High Court decision on the point and the period involved and the product is identical is not in dispute. Shri Sundar Rajan has made an attempt to piece together certain observations of the High Court in para 13 of the decision already reproduced above and observations of the 5 Member Bench decision of the Tribunal in Plasticote case (supra) already referred to above for the argument that in view of these observations carbon paper be held classifiable under T.I. 17(2) even before amendment of the Tariff on 27-2-1982 also. We do not think that this would be the correct or proper approach or an excuse for not following the decision of the High Court in preference to decisions of the Tribunal. As already stated this is the only decision on the poi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o pronounce the judgment which I am about to deliver. Para 9. It would thus follow that once a precedent is held to be a binding one, then no deviation therefrom is permissible within the judicial polity except in the well accepted categories of cases enumerated hereafter in para 12 of this judgment . It would not appear reasonable for the Tribunal to differ from the decision of the High Court. It might be stated that the present case does not come under one of the exceptions set out in para 12 of the High Court Judgment. For the same reason High Court being a superior constitutional judicial body there would appear no justification for referring the matter to a Larger Bench. 10. High Court of Karnataka after noticing Item 17 before its amendment on 27-2-1982 and after its amendment on this date, taking note of the tariff advice issued by the Board of Excise Customs in this regard classifying carbon paper as an article of stationery dutiable under T.I.68, intention of amendment gathered from the memorandum of objects and reasons accompanying the Amending Bill to the Finance Minister s speech held carbon paper during the relevant period classifiable under T.I. 68. Followin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... will not be applicable to the assessment of carbonised adding rolls. We hold therefore that so far as the carbonised adding rolls are concerned these will be classifiable under T.1.17(2).Classification of carbon paper having been found under Tariff Item 68, the question of limitation about this product does not require any consideration. It is material only for the other product carbonised adding machine rolls which has been found classifiable by us under T.I. 17(2). 12. We have already pointed out above the appellants classification list 5/79-80, dated 1-4-1979 was approved for the two products under T.I. 68 by the Assistant. Collector on 4-9-1979 and appellants were clearing these products under the tariff item. The Superintendent of Central Excise by what is called show cause notice dated 29-12-1979, inter alia, informed the appellants that approval granted to classification list 5/79-80 filed by the appellants for the two products be treated as rescinded. We fail to understand how the Superintendent of Central Excise could have rescinded the approval made by his official superior, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise and how this rescinding could have been done without f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
