9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (8) TMI 66X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... manufacture of multiple ply straw board/straw board of higher D.G. in the same factory of production. 3.Briefly stated, the facts are the following : - The respondents are the manufacturers of paper boards falling under Tariff Item 17 of the Central Excise Tariff. They manufactured single ply straw boards and a major portion of the single ply boards was cleared on payment of duty at the factory gate. A portion of the single ply boards was used in the manufacture of multiple ply straw boards within the factory of production and the multiple ply straw boards are removed from the factory after payment of duty. A show cause notice was issued by the Revenue calling upon the respondent why the duty should not be levied on single ply straw boar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed board) and ..." From the above description, it is clear that all sorts of paper boards including straw boards would fall under Tariff Item 17 and specifically would fall under sub-item (1) (unless such straw board is elsewhere specified, which is not the case). Therefore, the tariff description does not distinguish between single ply and multiple ply straw boards and does not prescribe any standard of thickness, before a board could be called a straw board. Therefore, straw board whether it is single ply or double ply or triple ply or multiple ply would continue to be described as straw board and would fall under the same sub-item (10) of Tariff Item 17 during the relevant period. Hence, charging single ply straw board to duty and again ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ference to Rule 49(4) read with Rule 9 of the Central Excise Rules was also made and discussed. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed. The Vice President (J) (Shri S.D. Jha), in his separate order, has observed as follows :- "From Brother Gulati's order I observe that single ply and multiple ply boards are both straw boards. In view of this I would not for the present like to say that effect of the Bombay High Court decision in Union of India v. Babubhai Nylchand Mehta - 1988 (33) E.L.T. 292 (Bombay) is to unsettle the Tribunal decision in Guardian Plasticote Ltd. case 1986 (24) E.L.T. 542. The product in two stages not being distinct in name, character or use there could be no question of demanding duty at both the stages. In this view of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
