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 conversion of base paper into waxed paper amounts to manufacture and falls under tariff item 17(2), attracting excise duty. (ii) Whether the assessee is entitled to exemption under the relevant notifications and whether the duty demand is sustainable on the record.
Issue (i): Whether conversion of base paper into waxed paper amounts to manufacture and falls under tariff item 17(2), attracting excise duty.
Analysis: The process of waxing transformed duty-paid base paper into a commercially distinct product known in trade as waxed paper. The Court applied the settled test that manufacture requires a change resulting in a new and different article having a distinct name, character or use. Waxed paper was specifically referred to in the tariff and in the exemption notification, which supported the view that it was recognised as a separate excisable commodity. The fact that the process was undertaken on a job-work basis did not alter the character of the resulting product or exclude it from the tariff entry.
Conclusion: The process amounted to manufacture and waxed paper was rightly treated as excisable under tariff item 17(2), against the assessee.
Issue (ii): Whether the assessee is entitled to exemption under the relevant notifications and whether the duty demand is sustainable on the record.
Analysis: Notification 119/75, which was confined to goods falling under item 68, was held inapplicable once waxed paper was found to fall under item 17(2). Notification 71/76 applied only from 16-3-1976 and exempted waxed paper only subject to proof that the base paper was duty-paid and that the prescribed conditions were satisfied; Notification 80/80 was also not shown to be available on the record. The Court further noted that the appellants had not substantiated their challenge to the quantum of assessment, although a separate calculation chart was warranted for the periods before and after the tariff change.
Conclusion: The exemption claim failed, and the duty liability was sustained subject to fresh computation by the Collector in the manner indicated.
Final Conclusion: The appeal was substantially rejected on merits, with only a limited direction for recomputation of duty for the relevant periods; the product was held to be excisable and the exemption claims were denied.
Ratio Decidendi: When a process produces a commercially distinct article with a different name, character or use, it amounts to manufacture and the resultant product is chargeable under the tariff entry applicable to that distinct commodity; exemption notifications must be proved strictly in accordance with their conditions.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
