1998(11)LCX0222

IN THE CEGAT, COURT NO. IV, NEW DELHI

S/Shri G.A. Brahma Deva, Member (J) and J.H. Joglekar, Member (T)

COLLECTOR OF C. EX., BARODA

Versus

VIPULAM ENTERPRISES (P) LTD.

Final Order No. 908/98-D, dated 9-11-1998 in Appeal No. E/153/92-D and E/Cross/230/92-D

Advocated By : Shri A.K. Agarwal, SDR, for the Appellant.

None, for the Respondent.

[Order per : J.H. Joglekar, Member (T)]. - The assessee in this case purchased hard board from the market as also decorative papers. They pasted the papers on the board and cleared it. The department’s allegation was that this amounted to manufacture in terms of Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and that duty was once again payable. The plea of the assessee was that the tariff heading did not change and that no process of manufacture was involved. The Assistant Collector in his order held that by virtue of the pasting of the paper a new product commercially known in the market, came into existence and that the duty was required to be levied afresh. The Collector (Appeals) in the impugned order reversed this decision placing reliance on the HSN note under Heading 4411.00 which is on par with Heading 4407.10 in the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. He observed that the goods would remain classified under this heading even where they were covered with paper. On this ground he allowed the appeal resulting in the present appeal being filed by the revenue.

2. We have heard Shri A.K. Agarwal, learned SDR who reiterates the claim in the appeal memorandum. The respondents were not present.

3. We have carefully considered the submissions and have seen the chapter note on which reliance has been placed by the Commissioner. In terms of the chapter note the classification of the board could not change even if the board was pasted with paper. The revenue has claimed that this process gave rise to a product commercially separately known. However, we observe that neither before the original authority nor before us this statement has been substantiated by way of traders’ affidavits or opinions of experts. We find nothing in the appeal memorandum to sustain the case made against the impu- gned order. We, therefore, upheld the impugned order and dismiss the appeal.

______

Equivalent 1999 (105) ELT 666 (Tribunal)

Equivalent 1999 (030) RLT 0494