Back
CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND GOLD (CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CALCUTTA
P.C. Jain, SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JJ.
Packaging Products -Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcutta-I -Respondent
Order No. A-1764/Cal/98 Appeal No. E/5353/92, A-1764 of 1998, E/5353 of 1992
Decided On : 12-12-1997
T.P. Dey,T. Premkumar
Per Shri P.C. Jain :
Briefly stated the facts of the case are as follows:-
1.1 The appellants herein filed a classification list describing their product as "Paper and Paper Board coated impregnated or covered with plastics (excluding adhesives), whether printed or unprinted." Classification was claimed under Tariff heading No. 48.11 and Sub-Heading : 4811.30. They also claimed the benefit of Notification No. 116/89 dated 27.4.1989. The classification list was effective from 20.3.90 and it was approved on 24.8.90. Later on, a show cause notice was issued asking the appellants herein to show cause as to why the duty of Rs. 85,978.05 for the period from April, 1990 to September, 1990 be not demanded from them inasmuch as they did not give out the fact that they had cleared two types of Poly-coated Paper, one in Roll-form and the other in Sheet-form, in their classification list.
1.2. On adjudication, the said duty was confirmed. The appellant firm did not succeed before the lower appellates authority. Hence this appeal before us.
2. The learned Advocate, Shri T.P. Dey urges that their process of manufacture of the goods namely Poly-coated Paper is as follows:-
i) The process of coating various substrates with polythene is "extrusion coating". Polythene granules are melted at about 600oF and the hot melts passes through the Die opening and falls on the substrate, that is, paper in the form of rolls from an unwind stand to the machine. This coated substrate comes in contract with the chilled roller to given bonding and passes on through the rewinding unit where it is rewound in the form of rolls.
ii) In case of sandwich laminating, the above process is followed except that another roll of substrate is fed on to the coated surface and is sandwiched.
iii) After polycoating the polycoated rolls are supplied to the customer as per his requirement in any of the three following forms:-
a) In master rolls, that is, the roll as it comes out from the polycoating machine after the process described above. In this case, the customer either slits the master rolls in smaller rolls or converts them into sheets under his own arrangement.
b) Where the customer orders the materials to be supplied in smaller rolls, the supply is made in smaller rolls obtained out of slitting the master roll. In this case, the width and diameter of the rolls is specified by the customers.
c) Where the customer orders the material to be supplied in sheets, the sheeting process is undertaken by a job worker to whom the polycoated rolls are sent for sheeting under Rule 57F(2) of the Central Excise Rules.
3. Learned Advocate has submitted that having regard to the aforesaid process of manufacture, since they have only poly-coated roll-form of paper and poly-coated the sheets, therefore, the proviso to Notification No. 116/89 would not be applicable in the case of their product and hence they cannot be denied the benefit of the said Notification (as amended). He also raises a plea of limitation that the demand has been raised even after the classification list had been approved right since 1989. He, therefore, submits that demand of duty can only be prospective and not retrospective, as held by the Supreme Court in the case reported in 1997 (94) ELT -14 (SC). He, therefore, prays for allowing the appeal by setting aside the duty.
4. Opposing the contentions, learned SDR Shri T. Prem Kumar submits that on merits, the appellants herein have no case inasmuch as the proviso to Notification No. 116/89 is clearly applicable to them in asmuch as ploycoating has been done on the sheets of paper. It has been done while the paper be still in the roll-form. He, however, submits that the Explanation would apply only when the sheets of paper are compressed together with plastic. Since that is not done in the present case, the Explanation takes them away from the benefit of Notification No. 116/89 (as amended).
5. As regards the question of time-bar, learned JDR points out that the show caus
