TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
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
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether lamination or bituminisation of kraft paper resulted in manufacture of a new excisable commodity falling under Tariff Item 17 of the Central Excise Tariff; (ii) whether the demand against the bituminised paper manufacturer was barred by limitation and whether non-disclosure in the classification list attracted Rule 9; (iii) whether the benefit of the relevant exemption and set-off notifications was available in the manner claimed.
Issue (i): Whether lamination or bituminisation of kraft paper resulted in manufacture of a new excisable commodity falling under Tariff Item 17 of the Central Excise Tariff.
Analysis: The product of one appellant was kraft paper laminated with polythene between two layers of paper, and the other product was bituminised laminated paper. The reasoning applied the principle that manufacture occurs when a process brings into existence a new, distinct and commercially known commodity having a different character, name and use. The absence of an express mention of lamination or bituminisation in the tariff entry did not negate excisability where the general heading covered paper of all sorts and the process produced a marketable article distinct from the original kraft paper.
Conclusion: The processes amounted to manufacture and the resultant products were liable to duty. This issue was decided against the assessee.
Issue (ii): Whether the demand against the bituminised paper manufacturer was barred by limitation and whether non-disclosure in the classification list attracted Rule 9.
Analysis: The relevant product had not been disclosed in the classification list, and the demand was raised for clearances made without payment of duty. In the absence of disclosure, the reasoning treated the case as one of suppression or non-disclosure sufficient to sustain demand under Rule 9. The plea that the show cause notice was time-barred was therefore rejected.
Conclusion: The demand was not barred by limitation. This issue was decided against the assessee.
Issue (iii): Whether the benefit of the relevant exemption and set-off notifications was available in the manner claimed.
Analysis: The notifications were construed together, and the set-off under the relevant notification was to be applied before the slab exemption under the other notification. On that construction, the assessees could not claim a larger relief than that allowed by the departmental authorities.
Conclusion: The notification-based relief was not available beyond the extent already recognized. This issue was decided against the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The majority held that the processed paper products were excisable and that no relief could be granted in either appeal, while the dissenting views would have denied a fresh levy in the absence of a tariff change.
Ratio Decidendi: A process that converts paper into a distinct, marketable commodity with a different character and use constitutes manufacture for excise purposes, and duty is attracted even if the resultant article remains within the same broad tariff heading.
TaxTMI 
