1988 (2) TMI 328

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on list which has been approved exempting them from duty under Notification No. 234/82, dated 1-12-1982 - whether the two fall under Tariff Item 68 as held by the lower Appellate authority and the original authority or Tariff item 17(2) and exempt under Notification No 63/82, dated 28.2.1982? 2. The admitted position is that the appellants use duty paid Poster paper as base material for their finished product Printed Waxed paper and Un-waxed Printed Paper cut into sheets and reels. Prior to 17.3.82, the appellants manufactures were hold classifiable under Tariff Item 17(2) and appellants were clearing the goods after paying 15% Central Excise duty availing of benefit of concessional payment under Notification No. 71/77, dated 28.4.77. On 2....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....base paper is printed according to design and specifications of the customers depending on the requirement of the customer, cut or scored or put into reels. This is unwaxed printed paper. In the case of the other item, waxed printed paper, after printing as aforesaid is done, the same are subjected to waxing. 4. At one stage, Sh. Lakshmi Kumaran had stated that first duty paid base paper is waxed and then printed. This appears to be the sequence of process of manufacture in the order of lower Appellate authority but Sh. Sunder Rajan submitted that printing after waxing was technological impossibility and the Collector (Appeals) had wrongly put the sequence of process of manufacture in his appellate order. He also stated that for getting th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eating the same as a product of printing industry. Their finding on this point should be set aside. 6. Sh. A S. Sunder Rajan however, drew attention to a decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Golden Press v. Deputy Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad & Another -1987 (27) E.L.T. 273 A.P.- [1986 (9) ECC 317 (AP)] where printed cartons were held to be products of packing industry as distinguished from printing industry. He also frankly drew attention to the fact that Tribunal in I.T/. C. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Madras [1987 (14) ECC T 398] had dealt with the decision. He also stated that decision in Vikrant Packers related to period 1978-79 when Tariff was not the same. It is seen that Tribunal in preference to A.P. decisio....