TMI Blog1989 (8) TMI 81X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nent part for the end product. In our opinion, the Tribunal was right in setting aside the order of Collector rejecting the claim to exemption in respect of such wrapping paper in terms of the proviso to Rule 9(1). There is no ground to interfere in these appeals, hence dismissed. - Civil Appeal No.1589 of 1988, 3760-3762 of 1988 - - - Dated:- 29-8-1989 - Sabyasachi Mukharji and B.C. Ray, JJ. K. Parasaran, Attorney-General, A.K. Ganguli, Senior Advocate (K. Swamy, P. Parameswaran and Mrs. Sushma Suri, Advocates, with them), for the appellants. R.N. Bajoria, Senior Advocate (S.K. Bagaria, Padam Khaita, Vivek Gambhir, Praveen Kumar, S.K. Bagga and R.K. Mehta, Advocates, with him), for the respondents. [Judgment per : Sabyasachi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... equired to be paid on the excisable goods if it was captively consumed or utilised in the same factory as component part of the finished goods falling under the same Tariff Item and specified in Rule 56(a) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. It was further stated that in the instant case, wrapped paper manufactured was captively consumed and utilised as component part of other varieties of paper. Wrapping, it was contended, of finished product by wrapping paper is a process incidental and ancillary to the completion of manufactured product under Section 2(f) of the Act and wrapping is used as a component part of finished excisable goods attracting the benefit of the Notification No. 18A/83-C.E., dated 9th July, 1983. The Superintendent (Tech ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... component parts for the manufacture. Therefore, in order to get the benefit of non-levy of excise duty on wrapping paper, it has to be established in both these appeals that the wrapping papers were consumed or utilised by the respondent assessees as component parts or raw materials for the finished products. 3. The Collector (Appeals) in his order observed that when wrapping paper was used for making paper reams/reals, it lost its original identity as wrapping paper and became a part and parcel of the paper ream/real and as such available for the benefit of amended Rules. Revenue disputed this finding. It was contended that the wrapping paper was not utilised or consumed in the manufacture of other paper. On behalf of the revenue, it was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntifiable and distinct goods. Goods have been understood to be articles known as identifiable articles known in the market as goods and marketed or marketable in the market as such. See in this connection the observations of this Court in Bhor Industries Ltd., Bombay v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay - 1989 (40) E.L.T. 280 (SC) = 1989 (1) SCC 602; South Bihar Sugar Mills Ltd., etc. v. Union of India and Ors. - 1978 (2) E.L.T. (J 336) (SC) = 1968 (3) SCR 21; Union of India v. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. - 1977 (1) E.L.T. (J 199) (SC) = 1963 Supp. 1 SCR 586 and Union Carbide India Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors. [1986 (24) E.L.T. 169]. See also the decision of this Court in Civil Appeal No. 2215 (NA) of 1988 - Collector of Central ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oods into existence as these are known in the market is not complete until these are wrapped in wrapping paper. In J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer [1965 (16) STC 563 (SC)], this Court while construing the expression 'in the manufacture or processing of goods for sale' in the context of Sales Tax Law, though the concept is different under the Excise Law, has held that manufacture of goods should normally encompass the entire process carried on by the dealer of converting raw materials into finished goods. Where any particular process, this Court further emphasised, is so integrally connected with the ultimate production of goods that, but for that process, manufacture or processing of goods would be comme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... excise already paid on the inputs. In that case, the question before the Tribunal was whether the nameplates could be considered as component part of the electric fan, so as to be eligible for proforma credit under the exemption notification. It was found by the Tribunal that no electric fan could be removed from the factory for being marketed without the nameplate. The Tribunal also noted in that case that even though it could be said that electric fans could function without the nameplates, for actual marketing of the fans, the affixation of the nameplate was considered an essential requirement. 6. To be able to be marketed or to be marketable, it appears to us, in the light of facts in the appeals, that it was an essential requirement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
