1985 (3) TMI 264 - AT - Central Excise

Appeal Decision on Duty Rate Dispute for Envelope Paper Classification

BENGAL PAPER MILL CO. Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, WEST BENGAL, CALCUTTA

The case involved an appeal against an order-in-appeal by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta, regarding the duty rate charged on angle ... - Issues:1. Appeal against order-in-appeal by Appellate Collector of Central Excise.2. Incorrect duty rate charged on angle cut azure laid ivory shape envelope paper.3. Time-barred demands for differential duty recovery.4. Dispute over classification of envelope paper under sub-item 2 of Item 17 CET.5. Revision of classification list by Assistant Collector without authority.6. Argument on treatment of angle cut paper and assessment under Item 17(2) CET.7. Interpretation of Tariff Item 17-C.E. for printing and writing paper.Analysis:1. The judgment involves an appeal against the order-in-appeal by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta, concerning the duty rate charged on angle cut azure laid ivory shape envelope paper. The original orders by the Asst. Collector of Central Excise, Asansol, were challenged by M/s. Bengal Paper Mill, leading to the current appeal.2. The dispute primarily revolves around the incorrect duty rate charged on the envelope paper. The Asst. Collector held that duty was short-levied due to the incorrect rate of duty applied, resulting in demands for recovery of the differential duty. The Appellate Collector agreed with the Asst. Collector but found some demands to be time-barred based on the period covered.3. The issue of time-barred demands arises from the period of short-levy and the applicable time-limit under Rule 10. The judgment clarifies that the time-limit for demands is governed by the date of the demand notice issuance, not the period of short-levy. Any demands beyond the specified time-limit are deemed invalid unless fraud or misstatement is proven.4. A significant aspect of the dispute is the classification of the angle cut paper under sub-item 2 of Item 17 CET. M/s. Bengal Paper Mill contested the classification, arguing that the treatment of cutting for envelope making does not change the paper's original character as printing and writing paper. However, the department defended the classification under sub-item 2 based on the paper's modification for envelope production.5. The judgment addresses the revision of the classification list by the Assistant Collector, which was challenged by M/s. Bengal Paper Mill as unauthorized and arbitrary. The department supported the Appellate Collector's decision, emphasizing the modification of the paper for envelope usage and the correct assessment under Item 17(2) CET.6. The assessment of the angle cut paper and its treatment for envelope production is a key point of contention. While the Appellate Collector upheld the classification under sub-item 2, the judgment suggests a more detailed discussion on the assessment would have been beneficial. The nature and use of envelope paper compared to traditional printing and writing paper are analyzed to support the classification under sub-item 2.7. The interpretation of Tariff Item 17-C.E. regarding printing and writing paper is crucial in determining the correct classification of envelope paper. The judgment clarifies that envelope paper, despite accommodating writing and printing, serves a distinct function as an envelope and falls under sub-item 2 of Item 17 CET. The ruling limits the duty recovery to six months preceding the demand notice issuance date.Overall, the judgment provides a detailed analysis of the issues surrounding the classification and duty rate of angle cut azure laid ivory shape envelope paper, emphasizing the differentiation between printing and writing paper and envelope paper based on function and use.