2002 (7) TMI 653

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... account of this dispute. The second issue which involves a demand of over Rs. 3 lakhs is in respect of duty exemption for broke paper which was consumed in the manufacture of paper by the appellant. Penalty equal to duty demanded has been imposed in respect of this demand also. 2. Relevant facts for the determination of the dispute are that the appellants manufacture paper, inter alia from non-conventional raw materials. Paper made from non-conventional raw materials is entitled to exemption from duty under Notification No. 6/2000, dated 1-3-2000. Sl. No. 77 of that notification is the relevant entry in the notification. This exemption is subject to a condition stipulated at Sl. No. 15 of the said notification. The condition stipul....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....or the appellants also pointed out that the interpretation placed by the Commissioner is contrary to the ratio of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CCE v. Malleable Iron & Steel Castings Co. (P) Ltd., 1998 (100) E.L.T. 8 (S.C.). The learned Counsel drew our attention to para 6 of the notification and explained that the Apex Court has held that when the notification is in regard to goods falling under a particular heading, other goods covered by other headings had no relevance while determining the benefits under the notification. 5. With regard to the dispute about use of broke paper in the manufacture of wood pulp (which is subsequently used in the manufacture of paper) learned Counsel pointed out that a certain quantit....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....is clear from the terms of the entry that the exemption is in respect of only certain varieties of paper and does not cover other varieties of paper. There is no warrant to take in other varieties of paper. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the learned Commissioner was in error in holding that the quantity restriction was to be computed taking into account clearances of all varieties of paper manufactured by the appellant. We say so for another reason also. If the exemption is read as applicable to the clearance of all varieties of paper, it yields all unintended results. Either excluded varieties of paper also get the benefit of the exemption on the ground that they were the "first clearances" or the included varieties are denied the ....