Excise duty on bond paper upheld as manufacture created a distinct commodity and input duty did not bar levy.

Writ jurisdiction was held maintainable despite alternative statutory remedies where the pleaded facts showed practical difficulty and no efficacious remedy. Bond paper was treated as a manufactured product distinct from kraft paper because manufacture produced a commercially different article with a distinct name, character and use, making it excisable under item 17. The levy was not impermissible double taxation merely because the inputs had already suffered duty; Article 265 and the excise law did not bar duty on the finished commodity. The excise levy on bond paper was therefore sustained and the writ challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the availability of alternative statutory remedies; (ii) whether bond paper was a manufactured product distinct from kraft paper for the purpose of excise duty under item 17 of the Schedule; and (iii) whether levy of duty on bond paper amounted to impermissible double taxation.

Issue (i): whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the availability of alternative statutory remedies

Analysis: The availability of remedies under the excise statute did not by itself bar recourse to writ jurisdiction where the petitioner complained of practical difficulty and lack of an efficacious remedy. The Court treated the statutory remedy as not an adequate answer on the facts pleaded.

Conclusion: In favour of the petitioner. The writ petition was held maintainable.

Issue (ii): whether bond paper was a manufactured product distinct from kraft paper for the purpose of excise duty under item 17 of the Schedule

Analysis: Manufacture was applied in the settled sense of bringing about a change by labour and manipulation so that the result is a different article with a distinctive name, character or use. On the process described, bond paper emerged as a product known in commercial parlance as different from kraft paper, having different qualities and uses for packing purposes. The Court held that the two were not the same commodity.

Conclusion: In favour of Revenue. Bond paper was treated as manufactured and liable to duty under item 17.

Issue (iii): whether levy of duty on bond paper amounted to impermissible double taxation

Analysis: The fact that the components used in manufacture had already borne duty did not create any legal bar to levy duty on the finished product. The Court held that neither Article 265 of the Constitution of India nor the excise law prohibited taxation of the finished commodity merely because its inputs had suffered duty.

Conclusion: In favour of Revenue. The challenge based on double taxation failed.

Final Conclusion: The Court upheld the excise levy on bond paper, rejected the challenge based on double taxation, and sustained dismissal of the writ petition.

Ratio Decidendi: A commodity becomes excisable when manufacture produces a commercially distinct article with a different name, character or use, and excise duty on the finished product is not invalid merely because duty has already been paid on its component materials.

---