TMI Blog1989 (5) TMI 63X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... credit in respect of duty paid on the wrapping paper at the earliest stage on being taken for packing other varieties of paper under Rule 56A of Central Excise Rules. 2. It is stated that the petitioner carries on the business of manufacturing paper and paper board. The petitioner is alleged to be duly licensed under the provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act and/or the Central Excise Rules, 1944. It is further stated that different types of papers are subjected to different rates of duty under the Act. A part of the packing and wrapping paper produced at the petitioner's said factory used to be and is still utilized in packing other varieties of papers manufactured at the said factory. It is claimed that with effect from March 16 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng all these facts in details, the petitioner has come to this writ Court on the ground that the wrapping paper is sold by the petitioner and it is clear along with paper content. No duty in respect of such wrapping paper can be charged at the stage of their being removed for packing other varieties of papers. The duty can only be charged along with paper contents when the goods are cleared from the factory premises. As the wrapping paper at the time of its being used for packing and other varieties of paper is not removed from the licenced premises, no duty can be levied under the Act and the Rules at this stage. The grievance of the petitioner is that the action of the respondents in levying the duty prior to the removal of the goods from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1984 (18) E.L.T. 88 (Collector of Central Excise, Indore v. Orient Paper Industries Ltd, Amlai), 1985 (20) E.L.T. 276 (West Coast Paper Mills Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore) and 1986 (24) E.L.T. 286 (Straw Products Ltd. Arn. v. Superintendent, Central Excise, Rayagada Ors.). 6. Mr. Sunderananda Pal, learned Advocate appearing for the respondents has, however, drawn the attention of the Court that the claim of the petitioner to obtain the benefits of Rule 56A with retrospective effect does not arise. He was mainly built up his argument by relying upon the case of Union of India v. Bombay Tyre reported in A.I.R. 1984 S.C. Page 420. He has particularly drawn the attention of the Court to paragraph 54 of the said report ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... val. It was, however, found that in the instant case, wrapping papers were not to be removed from the factory but they were to be used only as wrappers inside the same factory. It has been clearly found that since the petitioner manufactures wrapped paper for that internal use the wrapping papers are used for wrapping paper reels/reems there has been speed of removal. After going through the materials on record, this Court does not find anything that the steps taken by the respondents are contrary to and inconsistent with the provisions of law. The writ petitioner cannot ask for more reliefs by filing the present writ petition. This Court does not find any merit in the writ petition. In the result, the writ petition fails. The Rule is disch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
