TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1990 (9) TMI 190
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... decided on merits and on the basis of written submissions made in the said letter. 2. Brief facts of the case are as follows :- 2.1 The respondents herein is manufacturing single ply strawboard. A good portion of it is cleared by the respondents on payment of duty. Some portion, however, is captively used for manufacture of multiple ply strawboard which is ultimately cleared on payment of duty. The department sought to charge duty on the single ply strawboard captively used for manufacturing such multiple ply strawboard on the ground that a new commodity known to the trade having a different name, character and use comes into existence. Therefore, the excisable goods i.e. single ply strawboard, when used in the manufacture of another....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ff Item 17 during the relevant period. Hence, charging single strawboard to duty and again charging multiple ply strawboard manufactured out of such single plyboard sheets within the same factory to duty would clearly amount to double levy". On this ground, application under Section 35E(4) was rejected. The Collector has now come in appeal against the findings of the two lower authorities. 3. The Appellant Collector has urged that according to Explanation to Rule 9(1) inserted by Notification No. 20/82-C.E., dated 20-2-1982 excisable goods consumed or utilised as such or subjected to any process or processes for the manufacture of any other commodity are deemed to have been removed for the purpose of Rule 9(1). In the instant case, he su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty separately which would be a matter for separate proceedings. He, therefore, submits that in either view that appeal should succeed. 4.1 He also relies on Tribunal's decision in order No. E/78-80/90-D dated 8-2-1990 reported in 1991 (51) E.L.T. 434 (Tri.) [LML v. CCE, Kanpur]. It has been held, he submits, in that case that mother yarn is liable to duty even though it is subsequently split into different strands and wound on different cops and the split yarn on such cops are again charged to duty. 5. Respondents, on the other hand, relied upon a decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE Guntur v. Aruna Straw Boards Pvt. Ltd. [Order No. 445/88-C dated 19-4-1988] reported in 1988 (36) E.L.T. 335 (Tri.), facts and circumstances of wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... correct. Whether a particular process is a process of manufacture of a new commodity depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. It would be inappropriate to bring in the analogy of one product to another. Whether any new commodity having a different name, character and use has been manufactured by a particular process or series of processes will depend upon the evidence available in respect of each such commodity. It has been found in the instant case that strawboard remains strawboard and no new commodity emerges. This being the consistent finding right from the original stage, there is nothing to bring in the analogy of mother yarn and split yarn. 7. The interpretation proposed to be given by the Appellant-Collector on notif....