TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1993 (10) TMI 209
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re manufacturers of paper, an excisable commodity specified in Item 17 of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule (CET). During the material period, they used to manufacture wrapping paper as well as other sorts of paper. Duty used to be paid at the same rate both on the paper wrapped with the aid of wrapping paper as well as on the wrapping paper. The Departmental authorities appear to have considered that this practice was not correct and that since the wrapping paper and the wrapped paper fell under different sub-item of the tariff item, they should be assessed separately at the rates appropriate to them. On 10-2-1972, the Supdt. issued directions to this effect which the appellants started following. On 12-10-1972, the Supdt. issued a show c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rds Institution. No separate price is charged for the wrapper which is included in the price of the ream of paper, the contents. (ii) Duty was paid on the weight of the wrapper paper at the rate applicable to the contents paper. In the process, and depending on the difference between the duty rate on the wrapper paper and the contents paper, the short levies and excess levies on wrapper paper would have got cancelled. (iii) The appellants were not seeking exemption from duty altogether on the wrapper paper, as observed by the Asstt. Collector. (iv) Any revision in assessment practice which worked to the disadvantage of the assessee could be enforced only respectively. It could n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....paper should have been levied and collected before its removal within the meaning of Rule 9; that the levy of and demand for duty on the said wrapping paper is not in consonance with Rule 9 and, therefore, the impugned demand was hit by limitation under Rule 10/Section 11-A of the Act. In short, the argument was that the impugned demand was not enforceable despite the retrospective amendment of Rule 9 and 49. 7. Appearing on behalf of the Respondent, Shri A.K. Jain, the learned Sr. Deptl. Representative submitted that packing and wrapping paper was classifiable under Item No. 17(3) CET. In fact, the classification list filed by the appellants themselves showed the classification of packing and wrapping paper as 17(3) CET. Whatever ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....per was, of course, classifiable depending on its nature and description. The question is whether the packing and wrapping paper was liable to be charged the duty as such or only along with and at the same rate as the paper packed or wrapped. Section 3 of the Central Excises & Salt Act lays down that there shall be levied and collected in such manner as may be prescribed duties of excise on all excisable goods as, and at the rates, set forth in the First Schedule. We have already seen that packing and wrapping paper was specified in the said Schedule. 9. Rule 9 at the material time provided that no excisable goods shall be removed from the place of manufacture whether for consumption or export, or the manufacture of any other commodit....