9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (3) TMI 202X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng reel cores within their factory. The reel cores are in cylinderical or tubular shapes and are used for wrapping other paper thereon for marketing. The reel core fell under the residuary Item No. 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. But no central excise duty on reel cores was charged from the appellants because Item 68 goods, if captively used in the same or another factory of the same manufacturer, were exempt from payment of duty. The appellants used the reel cores for wrapping other paper thereon. As per the practice of the paper trade, the appellants charged their customers the price of the total weight of the good delivered which included the weight of the wrapped paper as well as the weight of the reel core. But to the Central Excise D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of the wrapped paper would mean charging duty on the wrapping paper value under Tariff Item No. 17 a second time. They relied on the Madras High Court judgment reported at 1987 (32) ELT 503 - Seshasayee Paper and Board Limited in which it had been held that double taxation on wrapper paper was not permissible and hence the cost of the wrapper paper, which had already suffered duty in the hands of the same manufacturer, need not be included in the assessable value of the other paper wrapped on it. The appellants also relied on the Constitution Bench judgment at AIR 1976 (S.C.) 599 - U.O.I, v. Tata Iron and. Steel Company Ltd. - for the proposition that there could be no double taxation on the same article. 4. On a query from the Bench, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s duty to the CIF value of the imported goods, for the purpose of levy of additional customs duty (commonly known as countervailing duty), did not amount to double taxation; it was only a different mode provided for by the Legislature for assessing the additional customs duty. 6. We have given the matter, our most earnest consideration. There could be no quarrel with the principle laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the TISCO case aforesaid that double taxation on the same article was not permissible. But we find from the facts of this case that there was no attempt at taxing the same article twice. No doubt, the appellants first paid duty on the wrapping paper, but when such wrapping paper was consumed in the making of reel cores, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
