TMI Blog1988 (5) TMI 247X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the Monotype machine , keyboard paper spools , Monospool paper or Monotype paper . The manufacture of these items comprises of two stages, viz., (i) slitting and re-winding of Monospool paper received in jumbo sized reels from the paper mills to reels of lesser width and diameter, and (ii) perforation of the lesser sized reels along the edges. The Monospool paper in jumbo rolls are duty paid under Item 17(1) of the Central Excise Tariff. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) has held that the process of slitting, re-winding and perforation is not a process of manufacture within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and hence, no further duty is chargeable. 2. Appearing for the appellant-Collector, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ting large rolls of paper into specific sizes and dimensions and to roll them into teleprinter rolls with the aid of power driven machines amounted to manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excises Salt Act. It was held that if the printing and writing paper on which duty had been paid was used in the manufacture of teleprinter rolls, it did not remain the same as classifiable under Item 17(3) of Central Excise Tariff, but because entirely a different product having a distinctive name, characteristics and used under Item 17(2). In the decision reported in 1987 (28) E.L.T. 438 (Tribunal), this Tribunal held that carbon paper was an article of stationery classifiable under Central Excise Tariff Item 68 and not under item 17(2) ibid b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d time. 5. In the result, we find no infirmity in the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals). Accordingly, we uphold the same and dismiss this appeal. 6. [Order per : P.C. Jain, Member (T)]. - I have carefully perused the order passed by my learned brother Shri D.C. Mandal, Member (T) and concurring in by the Vice-President (J). While I agree with the conclusion that the appeal deserves to be dismissed for the reasons stated in the order dated 21-4-1988 passed by the Technical Member, I may dwell upon a few points taken up by the learned JDR appearing for the appellant-Collector. He had placed a strong reliance on the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of Kores (India) Ltd. and the decision of the Tribunal in the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
