DECORATIVE LAMINATES (INDIA) PVT. LTD. versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BANGALORE

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 209 · Decided: 31-07-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.P. BHARUCHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

DECORATIVE LAMINATES (INDIA) PVT. LTD. 
v. 
COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BANGALORE 
JULY 31, 1996 
[S.P. BHARUCHA AND K.T. THOMAS, JJ.] 
Central Excise : 
Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985-Cltapter 44 of the Schedule-Commer-
cial Plvwood--{Jndertaking process of applying-Phenol Formaldehyde 
Resin-Exemption from duty on the ground that process unde1taken was not 
mam1facture--Duty already paid before processing-Exemption refused-
Held, Benefit of exemption cannot be claimed as end product is entirely 
different after processing. 
A 
B 
c 
The appellant company was engaged in processing commercial D 
plywood. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise issued notice to the 
appellant company that non-slip plywood is liable to Excise Duty. The 
Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) confirmed the order of the Asst. 
Collector and dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant. Hence this 
present appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1 The Tribunal has found that the plywood purchased by 
the appellant on processing has turned into a new commercial product 
acquiring a different identity. Hence no scope for contending that the end 
product is not a different commodity. The fact finding authority has 
correctly concluded that the end product is distinctly different from what 
it was before the processing was done on it. (211-G-H; 213-A) 
Laminated Packings (P) Ltd. v. Collector oj Central Excise, (1990) 49 
ELT 326, relied on. 
Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. and Another v. State of Kera/a and Others, 
(1989] 3 SCC 127; Collector of Customs & Central Excise and Another v. 
01iental Timber Jndusflious, [1985) 3 SCC 85 and Collector of Central 
Excise, Bombay v. Popular Cotton Cove1ing Works, (1994) 73 ELT 264, 
referred to. 
209 
E 
F 
G 
H 
210 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3775 of 
B 
e 
D 
1989. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.6.89 of the Customs Excise 
and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in Order No. 170 of 
1989-B. 
V. Sridharan and V. Balachandran for the Appellant 
J. Vellapally, P. Parmeshwaran for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
THOMAS, J. This appeal is in challenge of an order passed by the 
Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) repell-
ing the contention of the appellant that the commodity 'commercial 
plywood' processed by the appellant is not liable to excise duty as the duty 
was paid for the plywood before its processing. 
The case of the appellant - company is the following. Appellant is 
engaged in processing commercial plywood by applying Phenol Formal" 
dehyde Resin under 100 per cent heat and pressure and coats the plywood 
with wire mesh, either on one side or on both sides so as to make it slip 
E proof commercial plywood. The product is mostly used in body building of 
vehicles or for flooring etc. On 3.9.1986, the Assistant Collector of Central 
Excise issued show cause notice to the appellant company, in which it was 
stated that since non-slip plywood is a different product it is liable to duty 
as falling under sub-heading 4408-90 (Chapter 44 of the Schedule to the 
Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985). Appellant in the reply has explained that 
F 
commercial plywood was once subjected to duty and hence cannot again 
be made .dutiable merely on the strength of the processing done by the 
appellant. The processed commodity does not become a different product 
nor the processing exercise a manufacture according to the appellant. 
Some earlier proceedings, which culminated in refunding the duty collected 
G on such. products when the department later realised that no duty was 
chargeable on such commodity, have also been relied on by the appellant 
to bolster up its stands. 
The Assistant Collector took the view that the slip-proof commercial 
plywood (made after carrying out the processing work) is a different 
H product and so is liable to duty under the relevant sub-heading of the 
DECORATIVELAMINATESv. CGLLECTOROFC.E.[TIIOMASJ.] 
211 
Schedule to the Act. 
A 
Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) confirmed the said order of 
the Assistant Collector • CEGAT by the impugned order has concurred 
with the said finding and dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant. 
Learned counsel for the appellant first contended that since the 
department took a view in the earlier proceeding (which culminated in the 
order passed in 1985) that no new product was emerging from th

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.