TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1984 (6) TMI 251
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aper, the goods that are the subject of dispute. 2. The learned Counsel for M/s. Bhor Industries began by saying that this order of the Collector is no longer valid in view of order No. 253/84-C.E., dated 14th May, 1984 passed by this bench in respect of the classification of plastic coated paper under Notification No. 68/76-C.E. The Bench held that the manufacturer's plastic coated paper was entitled to exemption under the notification. The demands and their confirmation of the Collector's order followed the order of the Assistant Collector and Appellate Collector's order -in- appeal No. 1686/B-1-295/81 dated 2nd Jan., 1982, that the classification of plastic coated paper under exemption Notification 68/76-C.E. was wrong and that the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Therefore, the transfer was without the sanction of law, devoid of proper reason, incorrect and lacks justification. 5. Rule 10 allows a demand for short levy. The procedure for S.R.P. in Chapter VIIA lays down elaborate procedures for assessment, payment of duty, recovery of short levy. The learned Counsel drew attention to Rule 173-I which provided for assessment by the proper officer and for collecting of any short levy. If there is any conflict between the provisions of this chapter and the provisions of any other chapter Rule 173-I lays down that the provisions of Chapter VIIA would prevail. Rule 10 therefore, cannot be invoked because VIIA has a provision for identical contingencies and this provision, of Rule 173-I must prevail....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unal came to the conclusion that as the base paper was assessable under Item 17(1), while the finished product produced by the factory from that base paper was assessable under Item 17(2). The exemption under Notification 68/76-C.E. was not available, and the Tribunal rejected M/s. Entremonde's appeal. The facts are the same here - The gate passes which he has been able to obtain show clearly that the base paper was assessed under sub-item (1). This sub-item itself also covers papers like coated paper and coloured paper. It is not, therefore, illogical to say that the finished produced by M/s. Bhor Industries also continue to be assessable under Item 17(1) and was classifiable as a printing paper, in which event it would not qualify for ex....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... finding that the base paper had been assessed under Item 17(1) when the finished product was assessable under Item 17(2). The Tribunal held that the adhesion of the coloured sheet of plastic to the paper would not make the paper a coloured printed paper. This case is, therefore, not the same kind as the one dealt with in M/s. Entremonde's appeal nor are the products the same in construction. 13. To argue about the base paper having paid duty under sub-item (1) is beside the point, because Notification 68/76-C.E. does not impose any condition that the base paper should pay duty under this item; all it requires is that the appropriate duty of excise should have been paid in respect of the paper used in the manufacture of the finished p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f December 1980 of the Collector that arose from the transfer was set aside by Board's Order No. 41/1981 dated 11-3-1981, when it remanded the case for reconsideration. We recognize of course that the Assistant Collector, after giving a decision, can do nothing to correct that decision. 15. This is not what happened here. The Assistant Collector had not yet decided nor passed an order. This is not to say that the proceedings' could not have been handled better and that the need of transfer could not have been avoided. As it was, the reason for the transfer viz. that the duty was beyond the jurisdiction of the Assistant Collector-was totally incorrect and the Assistant Collector could have himself adjudicated on the demand. We do not k....