9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (3) TMI 261X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ory for captive consumption, duty was being recovered twice over in respect of such wrapping paper. He submitted that after the appellants had manufactured the wrapping paper and paid duty due thereon, they had discharged their liability towards excise duty on such paper. The Department was, however, insisting that duty on such wrapping paper should be collected for the second time when such wrapping paper was removed from the factory premises for being used as wrapping material for other varieties of paper. This had resulted in double payment of duty on the same goods and this action of the department was bad in equity as well as law. Shri Menon submitted that he would heavily rely on the CEGAT s judgment dated 6-1-83 in the case of M/s. S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was nothing inequitable or illegal in the duty being recovered on the wrapping paper when used for clearance of other varieties of paper. When such paper was used as wrapper for other varieties of paper it lost its identity as wrapping paper per se ; when used as wrapper it became an integral part of that variety of paper in the use of which it had been employed. Shri Mahesh Kumar pointed out that in para 9 of their memorandum of revision dated 5-4-80 the appellants themselves had conceded this position in the following words: Therefore, for purposes of trade, the wrapper paper has to be deemed as an integral part of the paper wrapped and that there is no question of wrapper paper being sold as such, as distinct from the contents paper ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ping in view the submissions made by him we should follow the Special Bench C judgment and reject the present appeal. 6. We have heard both sides. We see lot of force in the submissions made by the S.D.R. It is very relevant to observe here that subsequent to the issue of the Special Bench C order (supra), the detailed judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. M/s. Bombay Tyres International etc. was pronounced in October, 1983. It has been reported in 1983 E.L.T. 1896 (S.C.). The above mentioned judgment gives detailed reasoning with regard to the main conclusions which were reported in the Supreme Court judgment of May 1983. Keeping in view the observations of the Hon ble Supreme Court (c.f. para 51) it is clea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
