Colour printing exemption and double duty claims fail where plastic coating is treated as coating, not colour impartation.

Plastic-coated paper did not qualify as paper printed with colour under Notification No. 68/76 because colour must be imparted to the paper itself, and the attachment of a coloured PVC sheet was treated as coating rather than colour printing. The absence of a quantified duty demand in the show-cause notice did not vitiate the proceedings, as the notice was considered sufficient for an assessee familiar with central excise practice. The plea of impermissible double duty also failed because the earlier duty payment related to a different tariff position, and the later levy applied after processing moved the product into a new classification.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether plastic-coated paper was entitled to exemption under Notification No. 68/76 as paper printed with colour; (ii) whether the absence of a quantified demand in the show-cause notice vitiated the proceedings; (iii) whether the claim of impermissible double duty could succeed on the facts.

Issue (i): Whether plastic-coated paper was entitled to exemption under Notification No. 68/76 as paper printed with colour.

Analysis: The exemption was available only where colour was imparted to the paper itself. Mere adhesion of a coloured PVC sheet to the paper did not amount to printing with colour, since the paper remained uncoloured and there was only a laminate on the substrate. The process was treated as coating rather than colour printing, and the product therefore did not satisfy the notification's condition.

Conclusion: The assessee was not entitled to exemption under Notification No. 68/76.

Issue (ii): Whether the absence of a quantified demand in the show-cause notice vitiated the proceedings.

Analysis: The notice was held sufficient for an assessee conversant with central excise assessment practice. The omission of a specific amount did not invalidate the notice or prevent confirmation of duty.

Conclusion: The proceedings were not vitiated by the absence of a quantified demand in the notice.

Issue (iii): Whether the claim of impermissible double duty could succeed on the facts.

Analysis: The earlier decision relied upon concerned duty already paid on the same tariff sub-item before further processing. Here, the base paper had not paid duty under the same sub-item that was later attracted after processing. The product was treated as having moved from one tariff position to another, so the earlier payment did not bar the later levy.

Conclusion: The plea of double duty failed.

Final Conclusion: The exemption claim was rejected, the challenge to the notice failed, and the duty demand under the restored classification was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: A process amounts to printing with colour only when colour is imparted to the paper itself, and a product that moves into a different tariff category after processing may be subjected to duty under the later category notwithstanding duty paid under an earlier one.

---