SWASTIC PRODUCTS Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition the petitioner swastik products quashing of the impugned notices at Annexures "B", "D" and 'U' issued impugned order of the respondents at Annexures. There is a further prayer for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to forbear from enforcing and to desist from the enforcing the demand made in the aforesaid notice.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this petition briefly are these. The petitioner is a firm doing business of printing on paper. It purchases paper manufactured by manufacturers and colours or prints on one side of the paper. It is this colouring or printing on one side of the paper purchased by it from manufactures according to the respondents, that has entitled them to the demand payment of excise duty in accordance with the Tariff Item 17(4) of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Manual. Before the present action was taken against the petitioner, the Collector of Central Excise had held that the paper processed by is not liable o payment of any excise duty as it does not fall within Tariff Item No. 17(4) but the subsequently that view was not upheld by the excise authorities. The petitioner had once before moved this court for the same relief as prayed for new nd this court directed the excise authorities to afford the petitioner an opportunity of being heard and pursuant to that the Assistant Collector in the first instance heard the petitioner and held that the colouring or printing on one side amounts to 'manufacture' of paper is defined in section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and the in view held that Tariff Item 17(4) is attracted. The decision of the Assistant Collector which was carried in appeal by the petitioner was upheld by the Collector of Central Excise and the Revision Petition filed against the Collector's decision was also dismissed by the Central Government, It is after the decision of the Central Government that the impugned notices and the order were served upon the petitioner calling upon it to pay duty on the goods, namely, printed, paper as provided in Tariff Item 17(4).

(3.) Mr. Sanjanvala, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner invited our attention to Tariff Item 17 and also the definition of 'manufacture' to the contended that by no stretch of reasoning can, paper which is coloured by the petitioner to one side or printed on one side be said to be a process in the 'manufacture' of paper. 'Manufacture' as defined in section 2(f) includes any process incidental incidental or ancillary to the completion of a manufactured product; and