Santram Paper Mills Nadiad Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 3828 of 1989
Petitioner: Santram Paper Mills Nadiad
Respondent: Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 3828 of 1989
Judges: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY & S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Nov 30, 1994
Head Note:
EXCISE
Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944
“Wrapping/packing paper” or ” mill board” Question not decided as appellant was facing prosecu-tion. Appeal dismissed.
Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944
“Wrapping/packing paper” or ” mill board” Question not decided as appellant was facing prosecu-tion. Appeal dismissed.
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. The dispute in this appeal is whether the product manufac-tured by the appellant is wrapping/packing paper or millboard. We are concerned herein with the period 1980-81. For this period, the appellant filed a classification list treating the said product as wrapping packing paper. It was approved. But, later a notice was given seeking to revise the classification. The au-thorities now wanted to treat it as millboard. After considering the explanation furnished by the appellant, the first authority confirmed the show cause notice. An appeal preferred by the appellant before the Tribunal failed.
2. The contention of Shri Dave, learned counsel for the appell-ant is that the authorities have gone by the test evolved in trade Notice issued on 14-4-1955 (which evolved the test of gram-mage per square metre), whereas, according to Trade Notice issued on 19-11-1977, the test evolved is one of thickness. In other words it is pointed out that while according to 1955 Trade Notice, the density of 180 gms per square metre makes it a mill-board according to the latter, the thickness exceeding C50 milli-metres makes it a millboard. It is however, admitted that this later Trade Notice was not brought to the notice of the Tribunal. We do not also know whether in fact the application of these two tests would make any difference in fact. We cannot permit the appellant to establish the working result of these two tests at this late stage.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant brought to our notice that the appellant is also being prosecuted in a criminal court. It is obvious that the said case shall be determined on its own merits and according to law, uninhibited by the findings of the Tribunal.
4. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
1. The dispute in this appeal is whether the product manufac-tured by the appellant is wrapping/packing paper or millboard. We are concerned herein with the period 1980-81. For this period, the appellant filed a classification list treating the said product as wrapping packing paper. It was approved. But, later a notice was given seeking to revise the classification. The au-thorities now wanted to treat it as millboard. After considering the explanation furnished by the appellant, the first authority confirmed the show cause notice. An appeal preferred by the appellant before the Tribunal failed.
2. The contention of Shri Dave, learned counsel for the appell-ant is that the authorities have gone by the test evolved in trade Notice issued on 14-4-1955 (which evolved the test of gram-mage per square metre), whereas, according to Trade Notice issued on 19-11-1977, the test evolved is one of thickness. In other words it is pointed out that while according to 1955 Trade Notice, the density of 180 gms per square metre makes it a mill-board according to the latter, the thickness exceeding C50 milli-metres makes it a millboard. It is however, admitted that this later Trade Notice was not brought to the notice of the Tribunal. We do not also know whether in fact the application of these two tests would make any difference in fact. We cannot permit the appellant to establish the working result of these two tests at this late stage.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant brought to our notice that the appellant is also being prosecuted in a criminal court. It is obvious that the said case shall be determined on its own merits and according to law, uninhibited by the findings of the Tribunal.
4. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
