STADFAST PAPER MILLS Vs. D.R. KOHLI, FORMER COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BARODA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition involves two questions relating to Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'). The first question is whether the demand of differential amount of duty in the sum of Rs. 8,735.85 raised by the Central Excise Department against the petitioner, falls under section 10 -A or section 10 of the said Act and the second question is whether the duty on the paper manufactured by the petitioner, is leviable under Entry No. 17(3) or 17(4) of the Tariff Schedule (Schedule No. 1) attached to the said Act.

(2.) SHORT facts forming the background of this petition are as under. The petitioner is a partnership firm manufacturing paper having its paper mill at the village Dungra situated in Bulsar District. It is an admitted position that the paper which is manufactured by the petitioner is subject to excise duty at either of the rates mentioned in entries No. 17/3 and 17/4. These entries are as under : 17(3) Printing and Writing paper other sorts .... 22 Naye Paise per Kgm. (4) Packing & Wrapping paper, other sorts .... 35 Naye Paise per Kgm. The contention of the petitioner is that the paper regarding which the differential duty is in dispute, is covered by entry No. 17(3) as these papers are printing & writing papers and, therefore, the proper excise duty leviable on these papers, would be at the rate of 22 Naye Paise per Kilogram. As against this, the contention of the Excise Department is that these papers fall under entry No. 17(4) as they are 'packaging & wrapping' papers chargeable to duty at the rate of 35 Naye Paise per Kilogram. It is an admitted position that the papers in question are coloured papers, specimen of which are produced by the petitioner along with the petition.

(3.) IT transpires from the record of the case that thereafter on 12th September, 1962, the petitioner entered into a bond in form B -13 under rule 9 -B of Central Excise Rules, 1944 for the purpose of payment of excise duty for future. Rule 9 -B provides for provisional assessment to duty and enables the assessee to request the officer concerned to assess the goods provisionally at a lower rate when the assessment involves two or more alternative basis. Thereafter, on 20th September, 1962, the Inspector of Central Excise Vapi, issued a notice of demand under rule 10 -A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 asking the petitioner -firm to pay up the differential amount of excise duty in the sum of Rs. 8,735.85. This was on the basis that while previously the excise was charged under entry No. 17(3) at the rate of 22 Naye Paise per kilogram, that charge was resulted in a short levy because the proper entry under which the duty should have been recovered was entry No. 17(4) as the papers manufactured by the petitioner, were found to be 'packing and wrapping' papers. The demand of the differential levy above referred to cover the period running from 30th August, 1961 to 27th July, 1962.