9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (8) TMI 173X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i G. Shiv Dass, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri Satnam Singh, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : V.K. Agrawal, Member (T)]. The issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s. Shree Vindhya Paper Mills Ltd. is whether the benefit of Notification No. 19/87 (sic) is available to gum coated paper manufactured by them. 2.1 Shri G. Shiv Dass, ld. Advocate, submitted that they undertake ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding 15 cms. it was roll and not a reel. The Collector (Appeals) allowed the appeal of the department holding that any paper which is in form other than sheet form is to be considered as in roll form and since the impugned product was in reel form i.e. other than sheet form, would not be entitled to exemption under Notification No. 49/87. 2.2 The ld. Advocate mentioned that the appeal was filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the paper, after the process of gumming is known differently in the market and the gummed paper did not have a readymade market at all. Finally the ld. Advocate submitted that in the appellant s own case for the earlier period, the Collector (Appeals) had observed that the gummed paper was supplied by the Appellants only in the reel or sheet form and therefore the condition of the notification nam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pter 48 the H.S.N. was raised and it was contended that as the impugned product was of a width exceeding 15 cms. it was a roll and not a reel. But, Note 7 which finds place in H.S.N. has not been incorporated in Chapter 48 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act. In absence of such a note in Central Excise Tariff, it cannot be read into the Tariff as the law maker has consciously not inco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
