9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (7) TMI 67X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /79-CE, dated 1-3-1979 and Notification No. 109/80-CE, dated 19-6-1980 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same insofar as it relates to the petitioner and restrain the respondents herein from collecting Excise Duty again from the petitioner herein under the same Tariff Item No. 17(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 insofar as it relates to the petitioner and pass such further or other orders as it may deem fit." 2. The petitioner is licenced to produce bituminised polythene lined kraft paper, waxed kraft paper and other similar products. The petitioner is producing polythene lined kraft paper and waxed kraft paper for the last 10 years as per the conditions of the licence. The petitioner is purchasing the main raw m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er amended by Notification No. 109/80-C.E., dated 19-6-1980. 4. The production of polythene coated paper, polythene coated waxed paper, waxed kraft paper is not a manufacture as contemplated under the provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. This is the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner. According to the petitioner it is only bonding of a layer of duty paid kraft paper with already duty paid polythene film and coating kraft paper with already duty paid wax, etc. According to the petitioner the raw material, namely, paper which forms part of above 70% of the finished product had already suffered excise duty at 30% at the hands of suppliers under Tariff Item No. 17(2) and the polythene, wax, etc., which constitute b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... polythene coated paper, polythene coated board, waxed board, polythene sandwiched paper and polythene waxed paper and sandwiched board falling under T.I. 17(2). This notification, according to the petitioner, shall not apply to a manufacturer who availed of (i) special procedure prescribed under Rule 56A of the aforesaid Rules in respect of the duty paid on base paper or board; (ii) the exemption granted under the notification of the Government of India in the Department of Revenue and Banking No. 67/71-CE, dated 16-3-1976. Notification No. 71/77 was further amended by Notification No. 25/79-CE, dated 1-3-1979, which substituted 15% ad valorem for 12.5% ad valorem. It is in this writ petition the petitioner challenges the said notification ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ended by Notification No. 25/79-CE, dated 1-3-1979 which substituted 15% ad valorem for Rs. 12.5% ad valorem. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. A. Muthukrishnan, submits that the case is clearly covered by the judgment of this Court in W.A. No. 326 of 1981, dated 2-7-1987, and as such the petitioner should be given an opportunity to put forward his case by remanding it for further consideration by the authorities concerned. On the other hand Mr. T. Somasundaram, learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel, submits that the case is covered by the decision reported in East Coast Papers, Madras v. Union of India and Another [1987 (30) E.L.T. 248 (Madras)], which in turn was confirmed by a Division Bench in W.A. No. 284 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mplies a change and the moment there is transformation into a new commodity commercially known as a distinct and separate commodity having its own character, use and name whether it is the result of one process or several processes 'manufacture' takes place. In the instant case, the process that is being adopted is binding the paper and the board with polyethelene. The binding agent, namely, polyethelene granules are melted in the extruder and is fed as a thin sheet in between the paper and the board and the same is immediately passed through a chill roll, the moulten polyethelene is solidified and thereby hold the paper and the board together. Therefore, it would certainly fall within the definition of 'manufacture' as envisaged by Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m J., in East Coast Papers, Madras v. Union of India and Another [1987 (30) E.L.T. 248 (Madras)], because the facts of the instant case are similar to the facts of the said decision. In view of the judgments of this Court in W.P. No. 6973 of 1980, dated. 16-2-1987 and in W.A. Nos. 118 and 326 of 1981 - W A 118/81. 1. The Government of India rep. by Secretary Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue and Banking. 2. The Asst. Collector. Central Excise, I.D.O., Madurai v. Kwality Coated Products rep. by Partner S. Arasakasari, W.A. 326/81. Government of India rep. by Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue and Banking and Another v. National Paper Products by its Managing Partner, Virudhunagar, dated 2-7-1987, this Court is of the opinion ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
