Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.20 seconds)
G.T.C. Industries Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 16 November, 1994 cites

Dunlop India Ltd vs Union Of India And Ors on 6 October, 1975

5. The appellants are aggrieved with this order and hence the appeal. The appellants contend that the end-use cannot be the criteria for the purpose of classification and in this context rely on the ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as rendered in the case of Dunlop India v. U.O.I. 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1566 (SC) and that of the Tribunal ruling rendered in the case of Goodlass Neurolac Paints v. C.C.E. 1992 (60) E.L.T. 392. It is pleaded that Tariff Entry 48.11 does not mention that surface decorated paper, if used for wrapping the filter mass would be cigarette paper under 4813.00. It is stated that physical character of the paper evidently manifests the use to which it is put to and therefore, its use does not change by surface decorating it. It is stated that in long past Cork was used as a 'tip' to one end of the Cigarette and the paper which wrapped it was called cork-tipped paper or C.T. paper i.e. tipping paper. It is stated that though Cork has long been replaced by filter, the paper wrapping the filter continues to be called C.T. paper (Cork Tipped Paper) in the industry and the trade. Cork used to have dots which was reflected on the paper wrapping it. It is stated that, it was for this reason that when filter replaced the cork, the paper wrapping the filter has been surface decorated by a process called 'Motley' so that dots appear on the paper which resemble the cork tipped paper to keep the tradition. They state that the paper was manufactured, classified and assessed under Heading 48.05 because of its distinct physical character. Since there is no change in either the physical character or the end-use by surface decorating it, they had sought classification under Heading 48.11, which covers paper or paper-board, which are converted into surface coloured, surface decorated or printed in rolls or sheets. They further submit that surface decorating is a process of conversion. If any paper falling under Chapter 48 is converted out of duty paid base paper, such converted type of paper attract classification under 48.11 and exempted under Notification No. 49/87, dt. 1-3-1987 as amended, from whole of the duty of excise. They also rely on the Trade Notice No. 27(MP) of Collectorate Bombay-II which has suggested classification of surface decorated tipping paper as paper and paper-board under Heading 4811.90. They submit that only one heading is possible and hence the question of invoking the Rules of Interpretation does not arise and it has been wrongly applied by lower authorities. They also plead that HSN Explanatory Notes also do not apply to the fact of the present case. It is further pleaded that the understanding in the trade is that tipping paper has an identity of its own separate from Cigarette paper. They also submit that they do not manufacture the tipping paper, as they merely purchase duty paid plain tipping paper and that they do not carry out any manufacturing process on this duty paid paper. They submit that the process of printing called 'Motley' whereby a design of white dots decorate its one side is a recognised process of conversion in paper technology and this process would make the converted paper fall under subheading 48.11 from 48.05. They submit that the process of converting to surface decorating is incorporated in sub-heading 48.11 itself and that the process of conversion neither changes the physical property nor the end use of the paper.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 290 - P K Goswami - Full Document

Udai Lal Doshi vs Collector Of Customs And Central Excise on 17 February, 1992

The Asstt. Collector had adopted HSN Explanatory Note to classify the goods, but the same is not relevant, as the paper is not Cigarette paper at all and that the deptt. had not produced any evidence to show that the process of conversion by 'Motley' process is a process of manufacture and that the paper has become 'Cigarette Paper' for classification under sub-heading 4813.00. He also relied on the definition of several terms as appearing in IS 4661-1946, and few terms as appearing in 'The Dictionary of Paper', from "Dictionary and Encyclopaedia of Paper and Paper Making" by E.J. Labarre; from 'Speciality Papers' by Francis R. Gould, to submit that the paper in question is not 'Cigarette Paper'. He relied on the ruling of Shanti Lal Doshi v. CCE 1991 (56) E.L.T. 263 and that of Chetna Polycoats v. CCE 1988 (37) E.L.T. 253, to submit that HSN Explanatory Notes is not a conclusive piece of evidence for classification, but has only a persuasive value. He also submitted that all papers which go into manufacture of Cigarette is not Cigarette paper and that the Cork Tipping paper is different from Cigarette Paper. Mere printing on the paper does not bring in a physical change to constitute as a manufacture and to be considered as a different commodity and hence the Cigarette Tissue, after the 'Motley' process fall under the residuary Heading 4811.90. In this context he relied on the technical literature as well. It is his plea that the paper continuous to remain as a strong variety of tissue paper. He submitted that only a White Paper would satisfy the criteria of a 'Cigarette Paper' and that the Cigarette Tissue Paper does not fall within the category of 'Cigarette Paper'. Relying on the definition of the terms of Tissue Paper' and 'Cigarette Paper', the ld. Counsel submitted that only a finest quality of paper having a grammage below 25 gm/M2, is covered within the definition of Tissue Paper. Therefore, he submitted that all Cigarette Papers does not come within the category of 'Tissue Paper' or 'Cigarette Tissue', which is a different category falling with main Heading 48.11 as 'paper' only.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 26 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Union Of India And Others vs Bata India Ltd. And Others on 14 September, 1993

8. Ld. SDR forcefully replying to the arguments of the ld. Advocate submitted that the appellants were receiving 'Cork Tipping base paper', and what is cleared after the 'MOTLEY' process of manufacture, is 'Cigarette Paper'. The character of the paper has changed after the printing as the transparency of the paper has changed, after the process of Printing. He submitted that there is no definition in ISI for 'Cigarette Paper'. He submitted that the process of printing does amount to the process of manufacture and in this context relied on the ruling of Vimla Printers v. CCE, reported in 1993 (66) E.L.T. 231 and that of U.O.I. v. Bata India, reported in 1993 (68) E.L.T. 756. He submitted that the items shown in the Tariff, would be deemed to be marketable, unless otherwise shown by the assessee and that burden is on the assessee and that the same has not been discharged by them. He submitted that the paper received by the assessee were classified under sub-heading 4805.90 as 'Uncoated Paper under Rolls or Sheets' and after the 'Motley' process, they would be rightly classifiable as 'Cigarette Paper', based on their use to which it is put. He submitted that the use in manifest in the Tariff itself, and hence the question of not considering the end-use does not arise at all. Therefore, the end-use in this particular case is certainly relevant. He pointed from the definition relied by the ld. Advocate with regard to 'Cigarette Paper' from the literature produced that both combustible and non-combustible paper are covered in the definition of Cigarette Paper. This view is supported by the reading of HSN Explanatory Notes and hence the technical literature relied by the ld. Advocate is more helpful to revenue. Therefore, the HSN Explanatory Note cannot be brushed aside and it has a persuasive value, as rightly held by the lower authorities. The ld. SDR relied on the following rulings in support of his contentions :-
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 17 - Full Document
1