ROHIT PULP AND PAPER MILLS LIMITED Vs. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE BARODA
LAWS(SC)-1990-4-40
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: DELHI)
Decided on April 26,1990

ROHIT PULP AND PAPER MILLS LIMITED Appellant
VERSUS
COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE,BARODA Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

NARESH KUMAR VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-1994-12-66] [REFERRED]
GANESH TRADERS KIRANAAND GENERAL MERCHANTS VS. DISTRICT COLLECTOR KARIMNAGAR [LAWS(APH)-2001-11-7] [REFERRED TO]
SIRPUR PAPER MILLS LIMITED VS. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE HYDERABAD [LAWS(APH)-2002-6-122] [REFERRED TO]
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA BANGALORE VS. JACQUELINE CHANDANI [LAWS(KAR)-1993-9-15] [REFERRED TO]
Peerless General Finance and Investment Co LTD VS. Reserve Bank of India [LAWS(CAL)-1995-5-32] [REFERRED TO]
SATISH KUMAR UPADHYAYA VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2003-7-43] [REFERRED TO]
MADHUMILAN VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MPH)-2003-9-5] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. PULIKKAL MEDICAL FOUNDATION PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(KER)-1993-8-44] [REFERRED TO]
ICI INDIA LIMITED VS. PRESIDING OFFICER NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL [LAWS(BOM)-1993-2-62] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH DWARKADAS MEHRA VS. INDRAVATI DWARKADAS MEHRA [LAWS(BOM)-2001-5-13] [REFERRED TO]
Dove Investments Private LTD VS. Gujarat Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd [LAWS(MAD)-2004-12-147] [REFERRED TO]
LALABI MANKHAN VS. DHELULLAKHAN IMAMKHAN LODHI [LAWS(BOM)-2003-5-9] [REFERRED TO]
ASSOCIATION OF MANAGEMENT OF PRIVATE COLLEGES VS. ANNA UNIVERSITY [LAWS(MAD)-2009-8-201] [REFERRED TO]
AJAIB SINGH VS. PUNJAB UNIVERSITY [LAWS(P&H)-2001-10-11] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. TECHNO SHARES AND STOCKS LTD [LAWS(BOM)-2009-9-204] [REFERRED TO]
ANIRUDHPRASADCHOUDHARY VS. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA [LAWS(PAT)-1996-2-32] [REFERRED TO]
SOCIETY OF ST. MARY'S SCHOOL VS. PUNE ZILLA PARISHAD [LAWS(BOM)-2013-12-113] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. CREATIVE DYEING AND PRINTING PVT. LTD. [LAWS(DLH)-2009-9-256] [REFERRED TO]
B.V. Aswathaiah and Brothers represented by its Partner Sri. B.A. Shankaranarayan VS. The State of Karnataka through the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes [LAWS(KAR)-2010-2-133] [REFERRED TO]
GAURAV TRADERS VS. COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX [LAWS(ALL)-2007-4-411] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. ALPEX EXPORTS PVT. LTD. [LAWS(DLH)-2013-9-555] [REFERRED TO]
C B I A H D PATNA VS. BRIJ BHUSHAN PRASHAD [LAWS(SC)-2001-10-56] [REFERRED]
RAID LABAN COLLEGE SOCIETY VS. STATE OF MEGHALAYA [LAWS(GAU)-2010-8-12] [REFERRED TO]
ZILA SAHAKARI BANK MARYADIT VS. STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION [LAWS(CHH)-2011-5-2] [REFERRED TO]
B V ASWATHAIAH AND BROTHERS VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2010-2-31] [REFERRED TO]
MANIPAL UNIVERSITY VS. VASANTHA KOTIAN [LAWS(KAR)-2012-2-18] [REFERRED TO]
SHAIKH FAREED VS. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2012-11-63] [REFERRED TO]
M.H.JAWAHIRULLAH VS. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2013-3-88] [REFERRED TO]
MAHARSHI MAHESH YOGI VEDIC VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(SC)-2013-7-48] [REFERRED TO]
PRABHUDAS DAMODAR KOTECHA VS. MANHABALA JERAM DAMODAR [LAWS(SC)-2013-8-12] [REFERRED TO]
B. VENKATESWARLU VS. GOVERNMENT OF A.P. [LAWS(APH)-2014-3-3] [REFERRED TO]
ASSOCIATION OF UNIFIED TELE SERVICES PROVIDERS VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2014-4-48] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. RAJ KUMAR [LAWS(DLH)-2009-5-318] [REFERRED TO]
BHAGYALAXMI PROCESSORS VS. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., RAJKOT [LAWS(CE)-2011-10-21] [REFERRED TO]
THIRD MEMBER ON REFERENCE : SHRI S.S. KANG, VICE-PRESIDENT JYOTI LIMITED VS. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., VADODARA [LAWS(CE)-2007-11-96] [REFERRED TO]
AFCONS INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. VS. COMMR. OF C. EX., VISAKHAPATNAM [LAWS(CE)-2005-6-87] [REFERRED TO]
AMERICAN QUALITY ASSESSORS (I) P. LTD. VS. ASSTT. COMMR. (S.T.), HYDB-II ASSTT. COMMR. (S.T.), HYD.-II [LAWS(CE)-2009-6-98] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. ARVIND KUMAR JAIN [LAWS(DLH)-2011-9-491] [REFERRED TO]
FUTURE FOCUS INFOTECH INDIA (P) LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX [LAWS(CE)-2010-3-96] [REFERRED TO]
HARIPRIYA TRADERS VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(KER)-2014-10-309] [REFERRED TO]
CHAMPION R. SANGMA VS. STATE OF MEGHALAYA [LAWS(MEGH)-2014-12-17] [REFERRED TO]
KMK EVENT MANAGEMENT LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES [LAWS(APH)-2014-12-74] [REFERRED TO]
MAHARAJI EDUCATIONAL TRUST AND ORS. VS. SGS CONSTRUCTIONS & DEV. P. LTD. AND ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2015-5-65] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. COASTAL PAPER LTD VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE [LAWS(SC)-2015-7-49] [REFERRED TO]
COASTAL PAPER LTD. VS. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, VISAKHAPATNAM [LAWS(SC)-2015-7-136] [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. [LAWS(KAR)-2015-12-195] [REFERRED TO]
DR. BHURA SINGH GHUMAN VS. PANJAB UNIVERSITY, CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2016-8-39] [REFERRED TO]
MANGANESE ORE INDIA LTD. VS. STATE OF M.P. & ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2016-11-46] [REFERRED TO]
NIMMAKA JAYARAJU S/O. LATE SOWRYAPPA, VANAJA VILLAGE, G.M. VALASA MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT VS. THE HONBLE CHIEF MINISTER OF A.P., GOVT. OF A.P., SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, HYDERABAD AND OTHERS [LAWS(APH)-2016-10-20] [REFERRED TO]
M/S FLEMINGO DUTY FREE SHOP PVT. LTD AND ANOTHER VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [LAWS(KER)-2017-8-68] [REFERRED TO]
FLEMINGO DUTY FREE SHOP PVT. LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(KER)-2017-8-119] [REFERRED TO]
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF VS. H H CEMENT PRODUCTS AND ORS [LAWS(KAR)-2016-3-471] [REFERRED TO]
A. MUTHYALA AND ORS. VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS. [LAWS(APH)-2018-2-56] [REFERRED TO]
SACHINDRA NATH MAITIKHAN VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS [LAWS(CAL)-2010-3-175] [REFERRED TO]
DISTRICT BASIC EDUCATION OFFICER VS. NIYANTRAK PRADHIKARI ANUTOSHIK BHUGTAN ADHINIYAM 1972 [LAWS(ALL)-2019-9-360] [REFERRED TO]
P. MOHANRAJ VS. M/S. SHAH BROTHERS ISPAT PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(SC)-2021-3-10] [REFERRED TO]
BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. ITC LTD. [LAWS(DLH)-2021-4-33] [REFERRED TO]
MANAGING DIRECTOR VS. SIEMENS LIMITED [LAWS(MAD)-2021-8-20] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

RANGANATHAN - (1.)THESE are two appeals u/ S. 35-L of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). They arise out of the claim of M/ s Rohit Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee') for partial exemption from excise duty in respect of the art paper and chromo paper manufactured by it.
(2.)THE assessee is having a factory at Khadki in which different varieties of paper and paper boards are manufactured. The factory does not have a bamboo pulp plant. It uses waste paper and cereal straw which are considered to be unconventional raw materials for the manufacture of paper and paper board. The pulp used by the assessee contains more than 50% by weight of pulp made from these unconventional raw materials.
'Paper and paper board' are goods failing under item 17(1) of the first schedule to the Act. Two notifications were issued on 1/03/1984 under rule 8(1) of the Central Excises Rules, 1944 in respect of the above item. The first of them, being notification No. 24 of 1984, restricted the excise duty on items falling under the aforesaid item in the manner following:- JUDGEMENT_447_3_1990Html1.htm

The second notification, notification No. 25 of 1984, is the one with which we are directly concerned here. It provides for a concession in respect of paper and paper boards falling under item 17(1) of the Schedule, manufactured out of pulp containing not less than 50 per cent by weight of pulp made from materials (other than bamboo, hardwoods, softwoods, reeds or rags) and cleared on or after the Ist day of April in any financial year. The concessional rates prescribed were as below: TABLE JUDGEMENT_447_3_1990Html2.htm

4. This para, added by Notification No. 92/84 dated 18/04/1984 added another concessional rate where the clearances exceeded 10,500.00 but did not exceed 24,000.00 metric lonncs on the same lines as above but this does not need to be set out here."

(3.)THE grant of the above concessional rates were, however, subject to certain important conditions set out in the provisos to the notification. These provisos read:
"Provided that the factory does not have a plant attached thereto for making bamboo or wood pulp.

Provided further that the exemption contained in this notification shall not apply to cigarette tissue, glasine paper, grease proof paper, coated paper (including waxed paper) and paper of a substance not exceeding 25 grammes per square metre." Provided that the total quantity of clearances of all varieties of paper and paper boards in the preceding financial year, by or on behalf of a manufacturer, from one or more factories, or from a factory by or on behalf of one or more manufacturers, exceeding 3,000 metric tonnes but did not exceed 7,500 metric tonnes. Provided that the total quantity of clearances of all varieties of paper and paper boards in the preceding financial year, by or on behalf of a manufacturer, from one or more factories or from a factory or on behalf of one or more manufacturers, exceeded 7,500 metric tonnes but did not exceed 16,500 metric tonnes:

4.[This para, added by notification No. 92/ 84 dated 18-4-84 added another concessional rate where the clearances exceeded 10,500 but did not exceed 24,000 metric tonnes on the same lines as above but this does not need to be set out here].

Another notification No. 45 of 1985 dated 17-3-1985 has been relied upon in support of the contention of the Union of India and hence this may also be set out here. It prescribed rates on paper and paper board failing under item 17(1) in the following manner:- JUDGEMENT_447_3_1990Html3.htm

;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.