TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1984 (11) TMI 197
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ll two sides paper lined hessian (bitumenised). This product is obtained by hessian being bonded on both sides with layers of paper, using bitumen as the bonder. The Assistant Collector said that the product should be classified under Item 17(2) of CET at 30% duty for the period 27-5-1976 to 4-4-1978 and proceeded to demand differential duty of Rs. 29,707.84. 2.  The Appellate Collector in his order dated 30th May, 1980 said that the demand should be restricted in period to one year prior to 6-8-1977, and to six months for the period after 6-8-1977. He also decided that the product would fall under Item 17(2) CET and that Item 22A and Item 68 were not appropriate for it. He further ruled that Notification No. 184/76 which the factory ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-1980 M/s Board and Paper Converters, Bangalore 1980 E.L.T. 788 (G.O.I.), the Government of India ruled that a manufacture of hessian sandwiched between two layers of kraft paper and bonded by bitumen and containing 70% hessian by weight would be classifiable under Item 22A. In M/s. Basant Pran Electric Co., Calcutta v. Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta 1984 (17) E.L.T. 499 (Tribunal), he said that the Tribunal held that to assess under Item 17 of CET the article must belong to the family of paper or paper board. It held that an electrical insulating varnished paper was not classifiable under the paper item. He, however, said that in their products hessian accounted for only 30% and, therefore, cannot be said to predominate. In that cas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... finished product had the specified raw materials in its manufacture. It should not make any difference if raw materials not specified by the notification are also used in addition. It is enough that paper and bitumen have been used. 7.  He also quoted a judgment of the Madras High Court in M/s. Indian Organic Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India writ petition No. 179 of 1980 decided on 27-7-1982 [1983 (12) E.L.T. 34 (Mad.)]. He read out paragraph 13 of the judgment and stated that the Court ruled clearly that a manufacture of the finished product even if it includes goods not specified in the notification would earn the exemption if the raw materials required by the notification to be used have been used. The Court noted that the words m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oration of India [1978 (2) E.L.T. (J 452)] referred to by the learned counsel. She said that this judgment does not support the case of the manufacturers because Notification 184/76-C.E., under which the appellants seek exemption for their product actually describes the method of manufacture. This notification prescribed that the exempted product should be "obtained by bonding a layer of paper or paper board and another layer of paper and paper board with bitumen". A very definite and unmistakable identity had been imparted to the finished product so that no other product can, even by mistake, be given the exemption. The Supreme Court ruled in M/s. Hemraj Gordhandas v. Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Surat, that there was no room for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uitable if there are no other items which can accommodate this. We will, therefore, have to see if the other competing Item 17(2), can accommodate this bitumenised product, with bitumen as the bonding agent. The product is said to contain 30% hessain, 53% bitumen, and 17% kraft paper, and is said to be used for packing and wrapping. The hessian gives the paper strength and increases its burst factor, while the bitumen performs the role of only a bonding agent. It is not too difficult to say that the role of the hessain and the bitumen are only to increase or to improve the wrapping and packing properties of the paper. The paper becomes a stronger wrapping/packing paper than it was before it received the aid of the hessain and the bitumen. T....