The respondent companytended before the Col lector that they were entitled to the benefit of numberifica tion and it is well settled law in view of several judgments of High Court and orders of the Tribunal that wrapping of paper was a process incidental or ancillary to the companyple tion of manufacture of paper, as the printing and writing paper companyld number be sold in the market without being packed and wrapped by wrapping paper.
The Collector Appeals in his order observed that when wrapping paper was used for making paper reams reals, it lost its original identity as wrapping paper and became a part and parcel of the paper ream real and as such available for the benefit of amended Rules.
18A 83 CE dated 9th July, 1983.
Under the relevant numberification, the Central Government had exempted duty in respect of goods if these were companysumed or utilised in a place where such goods were produced or manufactured under relevant rule either as raw materials or companyponent parts for the manufac ture.
5 of 1988 A. Parasaran, Attorney General, A.K. Ganguli, K. Swamy, Parmeswaran and Sushma Suri for the Appellant.
It was further stated that in the instant case, wrapped paper manufactured was captive ly companysumed and utilised as companyponent part of other varie ties of paper.
The Tribunal referred to its own decision in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Bhubneshwar v. Orient Paper Mills, Brajraj Nagar, 1986 ELT 24 135, which is the subject matter of the other appeal involved herein, and set aside the order of Collector.
There was an appeal to the Tribunal.
180 special and Rs.
In that case, M s. Orient Paper Mills, Brajraj Nagar, respondents, were manufacturers of various types of paper and paper board.
From the Order dated 6.1.1988 of the Customs Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in Appeal No.
They were also the manufacturers of wrap ping paper for packing or wrapping of 1021 other varieties of paper.
Similar is the case in Civil Appeal Nos.
A 460 dated 9th February, 1984 and 485 dated 17th February, 1984 valued at Rs.
It was companytended that the wrapping paper was number utilised or companysumed in the manufacture of other paper.
of wrapping paper under Gate Pass No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
1589 appeal arises out of Order No.
respondent used to manufacture different varieties of printing paper including wrapping paper falling under Item No.
13,200 without payment of central excise duty.
16.50 cess totalling Rs.3,796.50 should number be recovered from them on the said quantity at the rate of Rs.900 per M.T. and special duty at the rate of 5 of basic duty and cess 1/8 on value.
2085 of 1985A in Order No.
5 of 1988 A passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal .
Civil Appeal No.
Revenue disputed this finding.
3760 62 of 1988.
17 1 of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff in their factory at Bansberia, District Hubli.
Therefore, in order to get the benefit of number levy of excise duty on wrapping paper, it had to be established in both these appeals that the wrapping papers were companysumed or utilised by the respondent assessees as companyponent parts or raw materials for the finished products.
It is the appel lants case that the respondent had violated the 1020 provisions of Rule 9 1 , Rule 173 F and Rule 173 G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 inasmuch as they had removed 4,000 kgs.
1589 of 1988 etc.
N. Bajoria, S.K. Bagaria, Padam Khaita, Vivek Gambhir, Praveen Kumar, S.K. Bagga and R.K. Mehta for the Respond ents.
The respondent preferred an appeal before the Collector Ap peals , Calcutta.
Show cause numberice was issued to the respondent as to why appro priate duty of excise amounting to Rs.3,600 basic , Rs.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. These appeals are at the in stance of the revenue under section 35 L of the Central Excises Salt Act, 1944 hereinafter referred as to the Act .
