Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1990 (12) TMI 76

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... as provided, under Central Excise Tariff Item No. 17(2). The entire case before the Assistant Collector was understood and argued on the basis of controversy regarding manufacture. Once it is held that the products which come into being are manufactured from kraft paper, then in the facts and circumstances of this case there can be no controversy that new goods come into being and they are sold in the market as distinct, separate and different goods. In the result we allow this appeal, set aside the order of the High Court and uphold the order of the Assistant Collector who held that the processed kraft paper had a definite characteristic, use and value and as such they are different products and are liable to payment of excise duty. - .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nto existence various kinds of kraft papers as mentioned above, the company is not liable to pay any excise duty in respect of the products produced in its factory. 2. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Bombay by order dated February 16, 1981 held that the kraft paper marketed by the company is bituminised water-proof packing paper, polythene-lined kraft packing paper etc. and as such were different and distinct products than the original kraft paper purchased by the company. The Assistant Collector also held that the processed kraft paper had a definite characteristic, use and value and as such they are different products and are liable to payment of excise duty. 3. The company aggrieved against the order of the Assistant Colle .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the help of a thin layer of bitumen sandwiched between them." The High Court on perusal of the above affidavit arrived to the conclusion that the process undertaken by the company could not be treated as manufacturing a new and different article. According to the High Court the conclusion was inescapable that the company did not undertake manufacture of different products with different characteristics and uses. After quoting Item 17(2) of the Schedule to the Act the High Court observed as under :- "The mere perusal of this item makes it clear that the liability arises in relation to manufacture of paper and for which any process is ordinarily carried on with the aid of power. It is not in dispute that the respondents carry out the proc .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... not approve the decision of Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Standard Packaging Nallore v. Union of India - 1985 (20) E.L.T. 314 (A.P.) = 1984 ECR 2635 which was relied on by the Collector of Central Excise, Guntur for reaching to the conclusion that the appellant would be eligible to claim refund of duty paid by them in this regard. 5. Mr. Lalit on the other hand tried to distinguish the above case and further submitted as an alternative argument that even if the case is covered by the above decision, no evidence was placed on record by the appellant to show that the goods in question were known in the market having distinct, separate and identifiable function. 6. We have given our careful consideration to th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... would be available to the appellant under Rule 56A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944". 7. It is no doubt correct that in the above case it was also observed that manufacture is bringing into being goods as known in the excise law, i.e. to say known in the market having distinct, separate and identifiable function. On this score in our opinion, there is sufficient evidence. On the basis of the above observations it was strenuously contended by Mr. Lalit that in the above case there was sufficient evidence on record to hold that after manufacture the goods were known in the market having distinct, separate and identifiable function but there is no such evidence on record in the case in hand before us. 8. We find no force in the above cont .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates