Inclusive tariff entry for processed paper barred a second excise levy on bituminised waterproof paper.

Item 17(2) of the Central Excise Tariff was construed as an inclusive entry covering paper and paper board even after treatment such as coating, impregnating or similar processing. On that reading, duty-paid kraft paper retained its character within the same tariff description when converted into bituminised waterproof paper, so the process did not create a separate levy. The claim of discrimination against integrated manufacturers could not justify a tax not supported by the wording of the entry. Accordingly, no second excise duty was payable and the refund claim succeeded.

---

---

Issues: Whether bituminised waterproof paper, made by processing duty-paid kraft paper, attracted a second levy under Item 17(2) of the Central Excise Tariff, or whether the duty already paid on the base paper satisfied the tariff entry.

Analysis: Item 17(2) was construed as an inclusive entry covering paper and paper board, including varieties subjected to treatment such as coating, impregnating, corrugation and similar processes. On that construction, kraft paper remained within the same tariff description even after being processed into waterproof paper. Since duty had already been paid on the kraft paper under the very same entry, the process of bituminising and bonding did not create a separate taxable levy under Item 17(2). The argument based on alleged discrimination against integrated manufacturers was held to be a matter for tariff amendment or exemption, not a basis for imposing a levy not supported by the wording of the entry.

Conclusion: The second levy on bituminised waterproof paper was not warranted, and the refund claim succeeded.

---