9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (7) TMI 330X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the arguments of Shri S.K. Choudhury, Senior Departmental Representative for the appellant and upon hearing the arguments of Shri K. Srinivasamurthy, Advocate for the respondent, the Tribunal makes the following order : 3. This is an appeal filed by the Department against the aforesaid order of the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Madras. The brief facts leading to the appeal may be set out as follows :- 4. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Warangal Division, in de novo adjudication proceedings as directed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Madras, found that certain quantities of wrapping paper used for purposes of packing other varieties of paper in the factory of M/s. Bhadrachalam Paper Board Ltd. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (like Asbestos cement). The object of bringing the above three categories of goods is for, (i) the manufacture of excisable goods or (ii) for more convenient distribution of finished product. The term `finished product' is distinguishable from the term `finished excisable goods' produced by the manufacturer and referred to in the rule subsequently. A finished product is brought into the factory for purposes of more convenient distribution of itself and not of other excisable goods (referred to as finished excisable goods). In the present case wrapping paper is not brought for purposes of its more convenient distribution. In thus referring to the more convenient distribution of other varieties of paper (e.g. finished excisable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the use of the wrapping paper for packing other kinds of paper forms part of the process of manufacturing other varieties of paper." As wrapping paper is not brought either for the completion of manufacture of other paper, or for its own more convenient distribution, the provisions of Rule 56A will not apply. 7. The learned Counsel for the respondent, however, referred to the broad structure of Rule 56A and claimed that its object is to avoid payment of duty twice on the same product. He incidentally referred to the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Andhra Pradesh Paper Mills Ltd. v. Asstt. Collector of Central Excise and Others, 1982 E.C.R. 941D (A.P.) = 1983 E.L.T. 86 (A.P.). In para 17 of the Judgment Thei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
