TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1988 (1) TMI 175
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e under Tariff Item 17(1) as coated printing and writing paper until amendment of Tariff Item 17 on 27-2-1982. Simultaneously with this amendment Notification 63/82-C.E., dated 28-2-1982 exempting converted types of paper and paper board other than wall paper, art and chrome board falling under sub-item (2) of Item 17 of the Tariff from whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon subject to fulfilment of base paper having paid appropriate duty was issued. The respondents then filed classification list effective from 28-2-1982 claiming classification of their product under Tariff Item 17(2) and exemption under Notification 63/82, dated 28-2-1982. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise after serving notice, dated 2-6-1982 on the respondents proposing to reject the claim for re-classification and after following usual procedure by Order-in-Original, dated 2-7-1982 held that till then the respondents had been classifying their paper under Tariff Item 17(1) as a type of printing and writing paper and just because certain papers classifiable under Tariff Item 17(2) got the benefit of exemption notification it will not be correct to change the basic classification of paper because of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a prepared and published by The Institute of Economic and Market Research, New Delhi. In this publication Coated (Art and Chrome) Paper figures at Serial No. 9 of Printing Paper. Shri Sundar Rajan relied on IS 4658-1968 (Reaffirmed 1977) Specification for coated paper and board (Art and Chrome) (Second Reprint September, 1983) published by ISI Manak Bhavan, New Delhi. He also referred to Indian Standard Glossary of Terms used in Paper Trade and Industry Second Reprint April, 1982 published by ISI Manak Bhavan, New Delhi, containing, inter alia, meaning of Chrome Paper and Coated Paper. He also relied on page 678, Vol. 2 of Explanatory Notes to CCCN to draw support for his arguments as to commercial understanding. Shri Sundar Rajan argued that undoubtedly the respondents two description of manufacture are coated printing and writing paper. Coated printing and writing paper are specifically mentioned in Tariff item 17(1) and, therefore, no further enquiry is required to be made. At the reopened hearing the process of manufacture as to the paper under dispute received from the manufacturer respondent was also placed on record by Shri Sundar Rajan. Shri Sundar Rajan again admitted that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tive, he submitted that if coating the base paper with china clay constituted manu-fature, then such paper would fall under Tariff Item 17(2) in which case, as converted paper, it would be eligible to exemption under Notification No. 63/82, dated 28-2-1982. In either case, there would be no duty liability on the respondent. He further submitted that show cause notice against the respondent was based on the allegation that the paper manufactured by the respondent was not in the commercial or trade parlance known as converted type of paper. In view of the fair concession by the Departmental Representative that the goods are converted type of paper, edifice of the whole case of Revenue disappears. For the submission that coated paper would fall under Tariff Item 17(2), he relied on the following three decisions - (1) M/s. Kiran Printing and Packaging, Bombay v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay - 1984 (3) E.L.T. 674 (Tribunal). (2) M/s. Entremonde Polycoaters Pvt. Ltd., Nasik v. Collector of Central Excise, Pune - 1984 (16) E.L.T. 389 (Tribunal). (3) Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta v. M/s. Calcutta Paper Rolls Manufacturing Co., Calcutta - 1984 (4) E.L.T. 120 (Tribuna....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ged that the Collector (Appeals) had not given his own findings and had not applied his mind. For this reason only, the order should be set aside and the matter remanded for de-novo consideration. 6. Before dealing with the submissions advanced by the parties it would be useful to refer to the process of manufacture of the two varieties of paper in question and the relevant portions of the Tariff item as it stood at the material times and Notification No. 63/82-C.E., dated 28-2-1982. "Tariff Item 17 - Excise Tariff, 1982. - Paper and Paper Board, all sorts (including pasteboard, millboard, strawboard, cardboard and corrugated board) and articles thereof specified below, in or in relation to the manufacture of which any process is ordinarily carried on with the aid of power - (1) Uncoated and coated printing and writing paper (other than poster paper); (2) Paper board and all other kinds of paper (including paper or paper boards which have been subjected to various treatments such as coating, impregnating, corrugation, creping and design printing), not elsewhere specified - (a) All sorts of paper commonly known as kraft paper, including p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a Paper Mills, Nasik, where a further coating is given of additional materials." Indian Standard Glossary of terms used in Paper Trade and Industry Second Reprint April, 1982 IS : 4661-1968 has about Chrome Paper, Coated Paper and allied expression 'Coating' the following to say - Chrome Paper. - A Paper coated on one side, after manufacture, with material containing adhesive, kaolin, etc. to give a surface for fine screen half-tone work capable of accepting coloured printing specially in lithography. Coated Paper. - Paper which has undergone a coating process (see 'Coating') on one or both sides. Coating. - The process of covering the surface of a paper or board with one or more layers of coating slip. Indian Standard specification for coated paper and board (Art and Chrome) Second Reprint September, 1983 IS : 4658-1968 had, inter alia, the following to say - 0.2 This standard has been formulated to define the quality of coated papers and boards (art and chrome). Art papers and boards are coated on both sides while chrome papers and boards are coated only on one side. These papers are generally used for fine decorative printing 3.1 General - The paper or board....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e is reproduced below : "Whereas it appears from the description of paper that the said paper is coated paper correctly classifiable under Tariff Item 17(1) and is not converted type of paper as being not known in the market/trade parlance as converted type of paper commonly known as limitation flint paper or limitation leatherette paper or limitation plastic coated paper etc. Moreover the exemption under Notification No. 63/82 is applicable to paper and paper board (other than wall paper, art and chrome board) falling under Tariff Item 17(2) and not to the coated and uncoated printing and writing paper falling under Tariff Item 17(1)." Now Shri Sundar Rajan has frankly conceded before us that the respondents product is converted paper. Therefore, the sheet anchor of the Revenue's case for denying classification as claimed by the respondents disappears and on this short ground the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 9. As for Shri Sundar Rajan's strong reliance on the Tribunal decision in 1983 (12) E.L.T. 382 and the argument that the case directly covers the issue involved in the present appeal, on going through the decision it is seen that the case related to one of import ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing again made under the same description was involved. We do not think that this decision would help the appellant. 11. As for Khoday Industries Ltd. case 1986 (23) E.L.T. 337 (Karnataka) the goods related to the periods 16-10-1978 to 18-4-1979 and 16-4-1979 to 22-2-1980 i.e., a period prior to amendment of Tariff in 1982 which is the period involved in the present appeal. The decision related to classification of carbon paper. Shri Sundar Rajan has relied on the observation of the High Court in para 13 to the effect - "There is force in the contention of Sri Bhat that so far as the process that the ordinary paper undergoes and the treatment that is given to base paper for converting it into carbon paper, it may appropriately fall under the description of 'coated paper'". We do not see how this decision helps the appellant. A sentence from a decision culled out of contents may not be determinative of the true nature and effect of the decision. In the instant case Shri Lodha does not say that no manufacture has taken place. In fact, his contention is that uncoated and coated printing and writing paper has been subjected to processes constituting manufacture taking it out from th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the period 1974-76 till the date of issue of show cause notice dated 23-1-1979 issued by the Additional Secretary to the Government of India which was transferred to the Tribunal to be disposed of as an appeal presented before it. The Assitant Collector had called upon the manufacturer to show cause why plastic coated paper should not be classified under Item 17(2) and pay duty at appropriate rate. In this decision duty paid printing and writing paper coated/laminated with plastic was held classifiable under Item 17(2) and this the Tribunal held does not amount to double taxation. After referring to the Tribunal decision in Golden Paper Udyog Pvt. Ltd. case the Tribunal observed as follows : "M/s. Entremonde's product has not paid 17(2) duty before; it paid only 17(1) duty. It appears to have migrated, so to say, from one duty zone to a different duty zone when it was subjected to the process by M/s. Entremonde's factory. That decision, therefore, will not protect M/s. Entremonde's product from being charged to duty under 17(2)." The position emerging from the decision, however, is that what the Assistant Collector in his Order-in-Original described printing and writing pape....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Tariff Item 17(1) and not 17(2). 16. As for Shri Sundar Rajan's reliance on Indian Standard Specifications (supra) for the argument that the two descriptions of paper are printing and writing paper it is sufficient to say that in Indian Aluminium Cables Ltd. case 1985 (21) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.), the Supreme court held that specifications issued by the Indian Standard Institution are for ensuring quality control and have nothing to do with the class to which the goods belong in a Tariff Schedule. Having regard to this decision, we do not think that reliance by Shri Sundar Rajan on ISI specifications advances their case. As for Shri Sundar Rajan's reliance on the publication Paper. Industry in India referred to in para 3 above, the same in view of the precedents in favour of the respondent discussed above does not help the appellant. 17. There is another reason why the appeal must fail. If inspite of the process of coating the papers remain printing and writing paper then it cannot be said that the processes have brought about a change in name character or use and if that be so no manufacture having taken place the two descriptions of paper would not attract central excise duty liabi....