9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (1) TMI 327X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... payment of duty and without observance of other Central Excise formalities. The Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi by his order dated 13-10-1976 classified these items under Central Excise Tariff No. 17(2) and 17(4) and demanded duty on the said 3,38,608.06 Kgs. of goods in question under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules. However, no penalty was imposed upon the appellants under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 3. Not satisfied with the said order of the Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi, the appellants preferred an appeal before the Central Board of Excise & Customs, New Delhi, contending therein that they had purchased duty paid writing and printing paper or wrapping paper from the market and that they were simply cutting the paper in making rolls and tapes and where necessary were also interleafing carbon papers. Regarding Kraft Ammunition Paper, it was contended that the same was nothing but wrapping paper and that no chemical treatment was done by them except that it was made further stronger to pack and wrap ammunition in it. What they were doing was not a process of manufacture and therefore the order of the Collector of Central Excise was not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that it is called Kraft Ammunition Paper. No process of manufacture is involved in this case also. He drew our attention towards the Indian Standard Glossary of terms used in Paper Trade and Industry (UDG 676:001:4) (August 1958 Edition) showing that there is no difference in the chemically processed paper manufactured by them and the so called packing and wrapping paper except that it is further made stronger to pack and wrap ammunition and therefore cannot be charged to duty under Item 17(4) of the Central Excise Tariff. 10. The second submission made by the learned Counsel for the appellants is that the demand of the duty made by the department is barred by limitation of one year as laid down under Rule 10 read with Rule 173J of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The paper which they had cut into rolls and tapes was already duty paid and the differential duty demanded by the department should have been made within a period of one year as laid-down under Rule 10 read with Rule 173J of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. According to him, the provisions of Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules cannot be made applicable in such cases. He drew our attention towards the Supreme Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ay High Court and it was held by their Lordships of the Bombay High Court that if printing or writing paper on which duty has been paid is used in the manufacture of teleprinter rolls or tapes, it does not remain the same as classifiable under Item 17(3) of the Central Excise Tariff but becomes entirely a different product having a distinctive name, characteristic and use under Item 17(2). 15. Teleprinter rolls and teleprinter tapes are definitely separate items than the printing and writing paper and are also known in the common trade parlance as teleprinter rolls or teleprinter tapes and are sold as such. This item is specifically included in the Central Excise Tariff Item 17(2). The authority below has correctly appreciated the point while holding that the base paper once converted into teleprinter rolls or tapes changes its identity and nomenclature and is rendered for use only on the teleprinter machines and therefore the process of converting the writing and printing paper into teleprinter rolls and teleprinter tapes is a process of manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and would attract duty under Central Excise Tariff Item No. 17(2) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... excisable or not and did not object to the clearance of the goods without payment of duty. In this case the appellants never informed the excise authorities nor obtained any licence. The excise authorities were not informed when the goods were cleared and therefore the question of entertaining any doubt as to whether the goods were excisable or not could not have arisen. 18. In N.B. Sanjana's case there was a demand made under Rule 10(A). When those demands were challenged as being untenable under Rule 10(A), demands were sought to be sustained under Rule 9 (2). While dealing with the question as to whether the demands could be justified under Rule 9(2) Supreme Court expressed :- "Sub-rule (1) of Rule 9 provides for the time and the manner of payment of duty. In this case there is no controversy that whatever goods were cleared by the respondents, necessary applications had been made to the officer concerned and the latter had passed orders of assessment to nil duty. To attract sub-rule (2) of Rule 9, the goods should have been removed in contravention of sub-rule (1)." 19. In the present case before us, the appellants had not even disclosed the fact of manufacture of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
