TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether paper treated with gum on one side in the course of making gummed tapes was gummed paper liable to excise duty under Item 17 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. (ii) Whether printed textile wrappers made out of duty-paid paper were converted types of paper liable to excise duty under Item 17 or were merely articles of paper outside the charging entry.
Issue (i): Whether paper treated with gum on one side in the course of making gummed tapes was gummed paper liable to excise duty under Item 17 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
Analysis: Liability to excise depended on whether the process brought into existence a new and marketable commodity known as gummed paper. The accepted test was that manufacture requires transformation into a new substance having a distinctive name, character or use and capable of being bought and sold in the market. On the material placed, the Department produced no satisfactory evidence from persons dealing in gummed paper to show that the intermediate product was known to the trade as such. Mere application of gum to one side of paper was held insufficient to establish manufacture of gummed paper.
Conclusion: The intermediate product was not gummed paper known to the market, and it was not exigible to duty under Item 17.
Issue (ii): Whether printed textile wrappers made out of duty-paid paper were converted types of paper liable to excise duty under Item 17 or were merely articles of paper outside the charging entry.
Analysis: The Court applied the same marketability test and found no material showing that mere printing of designs, monograms or descriptions on duty-paid wrapping paper changed its essential character into a new kind of paper. The Department's own trade notice treated labels, cartons and similar products made out of duty-paid paper and printed with designs or monograms as articles of paper outside the tariff entry, and the Department was not permitted to take a contrary stand on the same facts. The product remained wrapping or printed paper and did not become converted paper.
Conclusion: The printed textile wrappers were articles of paper outside Item 17 and were not liable to excise duty as converted paper.
Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded in full. The excise authorities were directed not to apply the Act and rules to the petitioners' Barejadi factory in respect of the impugned products and were restrained from enforcing the impugned demands or taking proceedings on that basis.
Ratio Decidendi: An intermediate product is dutiable as paper only if the process creates a new, marketable commodity known to the trade as paper; mere surface treatment or printing on duty-paid paper, without such transformation, does not amount to manufacture of excisable paper.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
