M.N. Chandurkar, J. - (1.) The question which arises in this appeal is whether the plaintiff, which is a bidi manufacturing firm, is liable to pay octroi duty in respect of tissue paper which is brought by it within the limits of the Municipal Corporation of the City of Nagpur for getting its mark printed at the Shivraj Fine Art Litho Works, Nagpur. The facts which are not disputed in this appeal are that the plaintiff sent 20 bales of tissue paper by truck from its Head Office at Sagar in Madhya Pradesh to the Shivraj Fine Art Litho Works, Nagpur, for getting the tissue paper printed with markings of the plaintiff's Firm. At the octroi Naka octroi duty was demanded which the plaintiff paid in respect of 19 bales on or about 24th February 1962. Since the plaintiff did not pay octroi duty in respect of one more bale it was detained and the rest were released The plaintiff then brought a suit for recovery of Rs. 83/12/9 on account of octroi duty which, according to the plaintiff, was wrongfully recovered from it. The plaintiff also claimed in this suit Rs. 14 on account of the value of one ream of tissue paper detained by the Corporation. According to the plaintiff after the printing is done, the tissue paper is taken away in the same form and shape and it cannot, therefore, be said that the paper was brought within the Corporation limits for the purpose of sale, consumption or use therein. According to the defendant Corporation, what is sent out after printing is not tissue paper but lables and, therefore the goods exported out of the limits of the city are different from the goods which were imported and the plaintiff uses the tissue paper for the purpose of preparing labels which it uses for its bidis. Before the trial Court a solitary witness was examined by the plaintiff. He was a person employed with the Litho Works and explained the process of printing. He deposed that the tissue paper was printed and returned in the same form.
(2.) The trial Court held that the Corporation is entitled to levy octroi duty on tissue paper when it was imported within the limits of the city for the purpose of printing the trade mark and it amounted to consumption within the city of Nagpur. The plaintiff was, therefore, held not entitled to any refund of octroi duty. It was also held that no paper was unlawfully detained by the Corporation. An appeal filed challenging the dismissal of the plaintiff's suit also came to be dismissed. The lower appellate Court held that there was consumption of paper in the sense that there was conversion of the commodity into a different commercial commodity and that the paper underwent changes when it was printed upon and therefore, was liable to duty under section 114(1)(e) of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948. The appeal filed by the plaintiff came to be dismissed. This second appeal has been filed now by the plaintiff challenging the dismissal of its suit.
(3.) It is contended by Mr. Bobde on behalf of the appellant that in spite of the printing work done on the tissue paper which is used for wrapping the paper continues to be tissue paper to be used for the purpose of wrapping, that the description of the article remains the same and that, therefore, the appellant was not liable to pay any octroi duty on the footing that there was consumption or use within the limits of the city of Nagpur. Reliance is placed on a decision of the Supreme Court in Kailash Nath v. State of U.P., AIR 1957 SC 790. Now, section 114(1)(e) of the Corporation Act empowers the Corporation to impose a cess on goods brought within the City of Nagpur for sale, consumption or use therein. The only question which has to be determined in this case is whether the tissue paper can be said to have been brought within the limits of the city for consumption or use when it is brought for the purpose of getting the trade mark of the plaintiff printed on it. The plaintiff's witness who was an employee of the Shivraj Fine Art Litho Works has produced a sample printed wrapping paper which shows that the tissue paper is printed all over with the mark of the plaintiff. This paper, it is not disputed, is then utilised by cutting into pieces for the purpose of wrapping the bundles of bidis. A bare look at the paper is sufficient to show that the original plain and blank tissue paper is converted into a printed wrapper. It is difficult to see how it is open to the plaintiff to say that the article remains the same even after it was subjected to printing of the trade mark all over the paper. It may be that originally it was a wrapping paper and even after printing it continues to be a wrapping paper but the nature of the commodity is now entirely different. On account of the printing of the mark of the plaintiff a new article has been brought into being and the commodity which will now be taken away by the plaintiff from the press is an entirely different commodity as a result of an increase in its utility being brought about by the wrapper being made specifically for use by the plaintiff alone because his trade mark is there. A new utility has been created and the wrapping paper which was originally blank has now been consumed and even used in the creating of this new utility or article. Though the article before printing and after printing is generally described as paper, it is obvious that it is not the same commodity and the nature of the article has now changed and it will not be correct to say that it is the same article or the same wrapping paper which will be taken back by the plaintiff after its trade mark is printed all over it.;