9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (7) TMI 288X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... involved in the present appeal is whether wrapping paper produced out of pulp by the respondents and used in the factory of production (of such wrapping paper) for wrapping reels and reams of paper manufactured by the respondents is entitled to the benefit of duty exemption in terms of Central Excise Notification No. 62/82, dated 21.2.82. 3. The Assistant Collector held that the wrapping paper was used merely for packing of reels and reams of paper and that it did not go into the manufacture of the latter and hence the benefit of the notification was not applicable. The Collector (Appeals) held otherwise. 4. We have heard Shri V.M. Doiphode, SDR, for the appellant-Collector and Shri S.V. Arya, Manager, for the respondent-company. 5. N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... used for the manufacture of other varieties of paper. 8. Shri Doiphode, for the Revenue, has relied on paras 7, 8 and 9 of this Tribunal s decision in Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad v. Bhadrachalam Paper Board Ltd. 1983 E.L.T. 2097 (CEGAT). The discussion in that case centered round Central Excise Rule 56A which permits credit of duty paid on material and component parts and finished products (like asbestos cement) brought into the factory for manufacture of excisable goods or for more convenient distribution of finished product. The decision 01 the Tribunal which went in favour of the Revenue was based on the footing that wrapping paper in that case was used not for its own convenient distribution but for the distribution of othe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ude the cost of packing. The packing itself was not the subject of the levy of excise duty. The Court found that the fibre board container secondary packing was not necessary for selling cigarettes in the wholesale market and the value of such secondary packing could not be included in the assessable value of cigarettes. 10. The issue before the Supreme Court was the proper interpretation of Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act providing for determination of the assessable value of goods chargeable to excise duty ad valorem. The aforesaid observations of the Supreme Court have, therefore, to be understood in their proper setting. Moreover, the question before the Court was levy of duty and not exemption from duty. Even going by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which permitted credit of duty on materials and components used in the manufacture of excisable goods. Several authorities including the Supreme Court s judgment in the case of Bombay Tyre International (supra) were referred to and discussed in the Tribunal s decision. The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court did not seem to have pronounced specifically on the point whether, in a given situation, packing would amount to manufacture. The Tribunal s decision ultimately was that normal minimum packing (not any special packing or durable/returnable containers) without which a manufactured product cannot be delivered whether for reasons of transport or otherwise should be treated as a process incidental or ancillary to the completion of that p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
