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
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether kraft paper after bituminisation continued to fall within the expression "kraft paper"; (ii) Whether the lamination process used in making corrugated cardboard with bituminised paper took the cartons outside the scope of cartons made out of kraft paper; (iii) Whether the bitumen used for making bituminised kraft paper could be treated as "other material" within the permitted one-third limit under the notification.
Issue (i): Whether kraft paper after bituminisation continued to fall within the expression "kraft paper".
Analysis: The notification exempted corrugated board cartons made out of kraft paper, and the cartons in question were manufactured from duty-paid kraft paper that underwent bituminisation and other necessary processes before being used in carton making. The conversion into bituminised kraft paper was treated as an intermediate stage in the manufacture of the cartons, not as a basis for denying the character of the original input for the purpose of the exemption.
Conclusion: Yes. Bituminised kraft paper was treated as kraft paper for the purposes of the notification.
Issue (ii): Whether the lamination process used in making corrugated cardboard with bituminised paper took the cartons outside the scope of cartons made out of kraft paper.
Analysis: The making of corrugated cartons necessarily involved bonding and lamination, and the notification was construed as permitting such technical and manufacturing processes needed to produce the exempted end-product. The emergence of an identifiable intermediate product did not by itself defeat the exemption where the final cartons were manufactured from the specified raw material.
Conclusion: No. Lamination did not take the cartons outside the scope of the exemption.
Issue (iii): Whether the bitumen used for making bituminised kraft paper could be treated as "other material" within the permitted one-third limit under the notification.
Analysis: The decision turned on the broader exemption for cartons made out of kraft paper and the permissibility of necessary processing materials in the manufacture of the end-product. Since the cartons were found to be manufactured out of duty-paid kraft paper and the intermediate bituminised paper did not disqualify them, the separate one-third question did not alter the availability of exemption on the facts.
Conclusion: The cartons remained eligible for exemption and the alternative objection failed.
Final Conclusion: The cartons were held eligible for exemption under the notification, and the revenue appeal failed.
Ratio Decidendi: Where exempted goods are manufactured from specified duty-paid raw material and an intermediate product arises only as part of the necessary manufacturing process, the exemption is not lost merely because the intermediate product has separate characteristics or commercial identity.
TaxTMI 
