9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (8) TMI 66X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 987 (12) TMI 34 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ) by this Court in Babubhai ( 1990 (12) TMI 76 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA )), is not relevant and the same cannot be pressed into service to upset the decision of the Tribunal that both the single ply and multiple ply straw boards answer to the description of straw boards and multiple straw boards cannot be considered as paste boards even in terms of the definition given in the ISI cited by the Revenue. Appeal dismissed. - 271 of 1989 - - - Dated:- 17-8-1999 - K. Venkataswami and M. Jagannadha Rao, JJ. [Judgment per : K. Venkataswami, J]. - This appeal by the Revenue is preferred against an order dated 19-4-1988 of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mere joining of two or three single ply straw boards by means of an adhesive would not necessarily lead to a conclusion that a commercially different and distinct commodity came into existence. The Assistant Collector also gave other reasons to come to the conclusion that the single ply straw board cleared for manufacture of multiple ply straw board in the same factory cannot be subjected to the duty of excise. Accordingly, by his order dated 6-2-1984 he dropped all further proceedings initiated against the respondent pursuant to the show cause notice issued for the period mentioned above. 4.The Revenue, aggrieved by the order of the Assistant Collector, preferred an appeal to the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras. The Appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8 dismissed the appeal. 7.A three Member Bench of the Tribunal, consisting of Vice President and two Technical Members, considered the matter. One Technical Member (Shri V.P. Gulati), who has written a detailed order, found as follows :- "We observe that both the single ply and multiple ply straw boards answer to the description of straw boards and multiple straw boards cannot be considered as paste boards even in terms of the definition given in the ISI cited by the Revenue." 8.Thereafter, a discussion on the decision of a five Member Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Guardian Plasticote Ltd., Calcutta v. Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta Ors. [1986 (24) E.L.T. 542] and also on the decision of the Bombay High Court in Union ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the five member bench decision of the Tribunal. It rested on the scope and interpretation of Tariff Item 17. 10.The learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue, however, argued before us mainly inviting our attention to the fact that the judgment of the Bombay High Court (supra) relied on in the detailed order of the Tribunal has since been overruled by this Court in Union of India Anr. v. Babubhai Nylchand Mehta [1991 (51) E.L.T. 182 (S.C.) = 1991 Supp. (2) SCC 348]. Therefore, according to the learned Counsel, the decision of the Tribunal has to be set aside. No argument was addressed before us challenging the conclusion of the Assistant Collector, the Collector (Appeals) and the Tribunal on the scope of Tariff Item 17 as well as the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
