TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1985 (12) TMI 148
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e relating to M/s. Guardian Plasticote Ltd., Calcutta v. Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta [Appeal No. ED (SB) T/174/ 80-C]. He, therefore, contends that the decision in that matter should be awaited before proceeding in this case. Shri Sundar Rajan also states that the Issue regarding limitation is also the subject-matter of the proceedings before a separate Larger Bench and that for this reason also it is desirable to adjourn the matter until that decision also becomes available. 2. Shri A. Hidayatullah, the learned senior advocate for the appellants has strongly opposed the adjournment. He has stated that he is not going to pursue the point of limitation and he would like the matter to be decided on merits. On merits, Shri Hida....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sian on one side and paper on the other and the variety which has hessian in between and both sides covered by paper. It is pointed out that the third variety which was not before the Bench in the Mahakali case in fact is closer to the jute predominance criteria made applicable by the Tribunal. It is further pointed out that the classification of the products is also covered by the Government of India's order in the Revision in the case of M/s. Board & Paper Converters, Bangalore (1980 E.L.T. 788). Shri Hidayatullah in this connection further cites Tariff Advice No. 2/77 dated 15th February, 1977 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs in which all Collectors of Central Excise were informed that it has been decided on a considerat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....em 17(2) and attract duty separately. In the Golden Paper Udyog case, on the other hand, it was decided that bituminising duty paid kraft paper was neither a process incidental or ancillary to the completion of manufacture of paper or paper board, nor it was 'manufacture' as the resultant Bituminised kraft paper continues to be paper or paper board in terms of inclusive definition in residuary sub-item (2) of tariff Item 17 and that therefore it was not liable to duty again thereunder. Shri Sundar Rajan has therefore reiterated that the whole issue of what constitutes treated paper is before the Larger Bench and its decision should therefore be awaited. 4. We have carefully considered the facts and evidence on record and submissions m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted paper or board/sandwiched paper or board at all. Nor does the question of what constitutes "treatment" of paper for classification under Item 17 of Central Excise Tariff arise. In this case, it is seen that the product in question is a jute manufacture known in the trade as hessian laminated goods and not as paper products. Further more, the value of the product is also predominantly made up of the value of the hessian content. By their very nature the products essentially are hessian goods and the paper content is only to withstand moisture and to render the goods seep-proof. We are therefore inclined to agree with the learned senior advocate on this issue and hold that this is not a question which is before the Larger Bench. It also d....