9911796707
TMI Blog1979 (8) TMI 90X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld such printed paper under the trade descriptions such as plastic paper, marble paper, file paper etc. The paper which the petitioners purchased from the traders was subject to the levy of excise duty under Item No. 17 of the Central Excise Tariff. Item No. 17 is as follows :- "17. Paper, all sorts (including pasteboard, millboard, strawboard and cardboard), in or in relation to the manufacture of which any process is ordinarily carried on with the aid of power - (1) Cigarette tissue. Rs. 1.00 per. (2) Blotting, toilet, target, tissue other than cigarette tissue, teleprinter, typewriting, manifold, bank, bond, art paper, chrome paper, tubsized paper, cheque paper, stamp paper, catridge paper, parchment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder Item No. 17(4) of the CET. 3. The petitioners challenged the order of the Assistant Collector by filing an appeal but the said appeal was dismissed by the Collector of Central Excise by his order dated July 1968. Before the appellate authorities, the petitioners claimed that the process applied by them to the paper did not amount to manufacture and Tariff Item No. 17 cannot be applied. It was also urged that the process of printing and polishing would not convert the paper into a flint paper. The appellate authority noticed the submission of the petitioners but without answering it, by a cryptic order dismissed the appeal holding that such printed and polished paper stand in a class by themselves and accordingly are correctly classif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... finding by the three authorities that the process adopted by the petitioners amounts to manufacture, the order of levying excise duty deceives to be quashed. It is not disputed by Mr. Dalal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, that the excise duty was paid on the paper purchased by the petitioners under Item No. 17(3) of the Central Excise Tariff. Mr. Dalal wanted to contend that the process of printing and polishing amounts to manufacture but such submission cannot be permitted in absence of any finding by the officers levying excise duty. 5. Mr. Bhabha also contended that on an earlier occasion, the appellate authority while considering the appeal preferred by Messrs. United Fine Art Lithographers had come to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
