https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291399 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. en-us Fri, 17 Jun 1983 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 09 Nov 2020 16:12:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291399 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. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 17 Jun 1983 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291399