Captive use of straw board in further manufacture does not trigger a second excise levy absent a commercially distinct commodity.

Tariff Item 17 covered paper and paper board, including straw board, without distinguishing between single ply, double ply, triple ply or multiple ply forms. Single ply straw board used captively in the same factory to manufacture multiple ply straw board did not become a commercially distinct commodity, so no second excise levy arose on that captive use. The scope of Rule 49(4) and Rule 9 of the Central Excise Rules was unnecessary to examine because the tariff classification itself was determinative. Excise duty was therefore not leviable on the single ply straw board used in the further manufacture of multiple ply straw board.

---

---

Issues: Whether excise duty was leviable on single ply straw board cleared within the same factory for use in manufacturing multiple ply straw board, having regard to the scope of Tariff Item 17 of the Central Excise Tariff.

Analysis: Tariff Item 17 covered paper and paper board, including straw board, and did not draw any distinction between single ply, double ply, triple ply or multiple ply straw board. The product retained the same description as straw board, and the use of single ply board in making multiple ply board in the same factory did not create a commercially distinct commodity attracting a second levy. The question of applying Rule 49(4) and Rule 9 of the Central Excise Rules was treated as unnecessary in view of the tariff classification.

Conclusion: Excise duty was not leviable on the single ply straw board used captively for manufacture of multiple ply straw board, and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the tariff description covers both the input and the final product as the same commodity, captive use in further manufacture does not by itself justify a second excise levy in the absence of a commercially distinct product.

---