Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

1994 (9) TMI 67

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... (1 of 1944) from so much of the duty of excise leviable thereon as is in excess of the duty specified against the corresponding entry in column (3) of the said Table." The Table appended to the said Notification reads as follows : TABLE S. No. Description Rate of Duty (1) (2) (3) 1. Commercial plywood Twenty per cent ad valorem 2. Batten boards and block boards (including flush doors) having both faces of commercial plywood and veneered shooks and panels made up of strips of woods glued between two outer veneers. Twenty per cent ad valorem. 3. Insulation boards and hard boards. Ten per cent ad valorem. 4. Marine plywood and aircraft plywood. Ten per cent ad valorem. 5. Veneered particle boards excluding particle boards with decorative veneers on one or both faces. Twenty per cent ad valorem. 6. Unveneered particle boards. Nil 7. (Omitted as unnecessary)"   3.The appellant's case was that the particle boards manufactured by it are `unveneered particle boards' within the meaning of Item No. 6 of the aforesaid table and, therefore, totally exempt from duty. This case was accepted by the depart....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the two face layers. The two fractions of wood particles are independently mixed with U.F. resin and additives in specially designed gluing machines. The glued particles are then spread into a form of mat, forming two face layers and one Central core. The mat thus formed is conveyed to the Hydraulic press where it is subjected to heat and pressure. The boards remain in the press for a pre-determined time after which they are taken out and cooled at room temperature. The surface of the board is then sanded in sanding machine, which also caliberates the board to the required thickness." 5.The Tribunal has pointed out that the very same process is set out in the two affidavits of `experts' filed by and relied upon by the appellant. The Tribunal then referred to the process of manufacture of MFPBs as described in brochure Exh. - II. According to the brochure, the appellant was carrying on "a unique process where the resin impregnation takes place in an integrated process and this melamine facing is a part of this process, and not what could be a simple gluing of a material subsequently". The said process was described in the brochure as "pre-lamination which implies that lamination....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... board. The melamine facing gives it a smooth polished surface. It looks as if the particle board has been laminated on both sides. (We are told by the learned counsel for the appellant that in some cases the melamine facing is done only on one side and not on both the sides.) It is thus difficult to say that the melamine faced particle boards can be described as `unveneered particle boards'. Nobody in the trade circles or in the market would consider both the products as one and the same. From whichever way one looks at them, they appear to be different products. As stated hereinbefore, even the process of manufacturing is different. It is not a case of mere processing of particle boards for giving it strength. It is a case of manufacturing an altogether different product. 10.Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the following passage occurring under the heading "Particle Boards' at page 175 of Encyclopaedia Britannica 15th Edn.) Vol. 9 : "Particle board, construction material consisting of flakes, shavings, or splinters of wood glued together in the form of sheets. The particles are mixed with resin, water repellants, and mildew inhibitors, formed into mats, hot-pre....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... that MFPBs can be described as `unveneered particle boards'. We cannot say that the reasons given by the Tribunal for rejecting the said affidavits are either irrelevant or unsustainable. The said affidavits, therefore, do not advance the appellant's case in any manner. 13.The learned counsel for the appellant then contended that since there is an ambiguity about the meaning and purport of Item 6 of the table appended to the Exemption Notification, the benefit of such ambiguity should go to the assessee-manufacturer and the entry must be construed as taking in the MFPBs as well. It is not possible to agree with this submission. 14.In Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes & Ors. [1991 (55) E.L.T. 437 (SC) = 1992 Suppl. (1) S.C.C. 21], a Bench of this Court comprising M.N. Venkatachaliah, J. (as the learned Chief Justice then was) and S.C. Agarwal, J. stated the relevant principle in the following words : "Shri Narasimhamurthy again relied on certain observations in CCE v. Parle Exports (P) Ltd. [1988 (38) E.L.T. 741 (SC) = 1989 (1) SCC 345), in support of strict construction of a provision concerning exemptions. There is support ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ty". 16.It is true that in some decisions a contrary view appears to have been expressed. In Caroline M. Armytage & Ors. v. Frederick Wilkinson [(1878) 3 A.C. 355], a decision of the Privy Council, it was observed : "Their Lordships have now to consider whether the decision of Mr. Justice Molesworth upon the merits of the application to him is correct. They must begin by expressing their dissent from the principle which seems to have influenced Mr. Justice Molesworth in this and some of the earlier cases, viz., that the provisions of the 24th section, because they establish an exception to the general rule, are to be construed strictly against those who invoke their benefit. That principle is opposed to the rule expressed by Lord Ellenborough in Warrington v. Furbor (8, East 242), and followed and confirmed in Hobson v. Neale (17, Beav. 185). Lord Ellenborough's words are - '' I think that when the subject is to be charged with a duty, the cases in which it is to attach ought to be fairly marked out, and we should give a liberal construction to words of exception confining the operation of the duty." It is only, however, in the event of there being a real difficulty in asc....