1988 (3) TMI 202

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....entral Excise Tariff. They utilised the duty paid wrapping paper for making reel cores within their factory. The reel cores are in cylinderical or tubular shapes and are used for wrapping other paper thereon for marketing. The reel core fell under the residuary Item No. 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. But no central excise duty on reel cores was charged from the appellants because Item 68 goods, if captively used in the same or another factory of the same manufacturer, were exempt from payment of duty. The appellants used the reel cores for wrapping other paper thereon. As per the practice of the paper trade, the appellants charged their customers the price of the total weight of the good delivered which included the weight of the wrapped ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... plus the duty already paid on such wrapping paper, in the assessable value of the wrapped paper would mean charging duty on the wrapping paper value under Tariff Item No. 17 a second time. They relied on the Madras High Court judgment reported at 1987 (32) ELT 503 - Seshasayee Paper and Board Limited in which it had been held that double taxation on wrapper paper was not permissible and hence the cost of the wrapper paper, which had already suffered duty in the hands of the same manufacturer, need not be included in the assessable value of the other paper wrapped on it. The appellants also relied on the Constitution Bench judgment at AIR 1976 (S.C.) 599 - U.O.I, v. Tata Iron and. 'Steel Company Ltd. - for the proposition that there could b....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... ELT 262 (Bom.)] in which it had been held that addition of the basic customs duty to the CIF value of the imported goods, for the purpose of levy of additional customs duty (commonly known as countervailing duty), did not amount to double taxation; it was only a different mode provided for by the Legislature for assessing the additional customs duty. 6. We have given the matter, our most earnest consideration. There could be no quarrel with the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the TISCO case aforesaid that double taxation on the same article was not permissible. But we find from the facts of this case that there was no attempt at taxing the same article twice. No doubt, the appellants first paid duty on the wrapping p....